Second Reading THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION INSTITUTE BILL (No. IV of 2026) Order for Second Reading read. (4.22 p.m.)

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill (No. IV of 2026) be read a second time. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise, today, not only to introduce a bill, I also rise for a turning point. A turning point on decades of fragmented research. A turning point on silos institutions that rarely talk to each other. A turning point on reports commissioned, shelved and forgotten. That era ends today. This Bill draws a line, bold, permanent and irreversible between what Mauritius has been and what Mauritius must now become. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what separates a nation that participates in the global economy from one that helps to shape it? It is rarely geography or natural resources. It is the capacity to generate knowledge, to translate that knowledge into innovation and to deploy that innovation in the service of national development. That capacity is what this Bill creates. C’est pour cela que je le dis avec force, aujourd’hui : ce projet de loi ne vise pas à créer une institution de plus. Il vise à doter notre pays d’un véritable moteur national d’idées, de preuves, d’innovations et de transformations économiques. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are an island with no oil, no gas, no minerals. Our principal resource is the resource that never runs out: the brilliance of our people. The world has changed. Today, knowledge is power. Innovation is power. Research is power. There are so many examples, like Singapore, which did it with brains. South Korea did it with brain. Ireland and Finland did with brain. Singapore generates thousands of patents and supports hundreds of spin-off companies every year. South Korea invests close to 5% of its GDP in research and development. In 2024, for every resident patent application generated in Mauritius, Singapore generated 270, Finland around 600 and South Korea around 28,000. Even if we normalise it for the population, the per capita innovation intensity for Mauritius is 56 times lower below Singapore, 32 times below Finland, and 676 times below South Korea. It reflects clearly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, being several times less patent intensive than these countries is not a simple gap. It is a structural gap. It reflects years without a national innovation culture. It will not close down on its own. It will not close down with goodwill. It will not close down with isolated effort. It closes through deliberate institutional intervention. That is precisely what NRII delivers. The world spent 2.87 trillion dollars on research and development in 2024. Not billions, trillions. Global research and development spending has nearly tripled in real times since year 2000. That is the scale of the global commitment to knowledge. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mauritius has decided not to remain behind. That is why I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. Prime Minister because the Government Programme 2025-2029, at paragraphs 21 and 37, committed this Government to a groundbreaking framework for research and innovation, and to the legislation to operationalise it. Consequently, the Budget 2025-2026, at paragraphs 21 and 23, also placed research, development and innovation at the heart of our new economic model and proposed the very institute we are establishing today. This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the delivery of that promise. On time. On mandate. On record. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is a fact that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ranks Mauritius 53rd in the world on the Global Innovation Index, number one in Sub-Saharan Africa, and classifies Mauritius as one of the fastest climbers on earth. But a ranking is not a destination. In fact, a ranking is a departure point. The NRII being proposed today is how we depart – decisively, ambitiously and permanently. The MRIC was created with good intentions. It served a purpose. We will never deny that. But the MRIC was built for an earlier phase of our development. That world it was designed for is gone. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for decades, we have produced research reports of impressive thickness and impressive obscurity, beautifully bound, professionally printed and stored. We cannot continue doing this. Today, fragmentation is a liability. Delay is a liability. Timid ambition is a liability. Section 41 repeals the MRIC Act. This Bill does not rename the MRIC. It does not tinker. It does not adjust. Sections 3 to 45 build something fundamentally and permanently different – what Mauritius needs now, that is, the NRII. A stronger body, a broader body, a sharper body, a national centralised body. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to walk this House briefly through the architecture of the Bill. Sections 1 and 2 set the legal foundation. They define applied research. They define mission-oriented research as research directed at finding practical solutions to national challenges. They define our national research and innovation priorities. No more research for the sake of research. No more papers that collect dust. We start with the problem. We commission the research to solve it. Here, I would like to let the academic know that we are not saying that we will not do fundamental research; that will continue. They will continue to have research funding from the Higher Education Commission and other sources, but what we are saying is that we are focused on national challenges. We want everybody to contribute to find the solution to the national challenges. Section 3 establishes the NRII as a body corporate, a real institution, a national institution. Section 4, the heart of the Bill, sets 11 national commitments – • Evidence-based policy making; • Coordination of the research ecosystem; • Mission-oriented research on climate, food, health, the ocean, the digital and energy; • Capacity building inside the government; • Resource mobilisation; • Talent attraction and retention, and • stronger international positioning. Section 5 places research inside the government itself. The NRII aims to train public officers to conduct, commission and interpret applied research. Evidence will become the standard, not the exception. NRII promotes research and evidence-based policy decision. Section 6 empowers NRII to conduct strategic research for new economic sectors: the blue economy, the green economy, biotech, advanced manufacturing, digital frontier to include a few. I wish to say clearly that diversification that we have been talking about should not remain a slogan. Diversification is research, is evidence, is strategy. The next pillar of our economy is likely to be born from the NRII research. Section 7 gives the institution the powers to deliver, to contract, to partner, to establish laboratories and innovation hubs, to appoint international experts, to raise funds globally, to patent, to licence and to generate royalties. Sections 8 to 14 establish five divisions – • Administration and Support, • Strategy, • Applied Research and Commission Studies, • Partnerships and Innovation, which is the bridge between academia and industry, and crosses the so-called ‘valley of death’ between discovery and deployment, and • Capacity Building and Talent Development which manages fellowships and the Mauritius brain gain initiative. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me one illustration. We all know Alexander Fleming. He discovered penicillin – by accident, be it – when he saw the bacteria near the mould dying. This happened in 1928, but only 15 years down the lane, it was 15 years after, that is, in 1943 that penicillin was given to everybody. So, 15 years between discovery and the time it came to the market and made available to everyone. 15 years between discovery and deployment. 15 years lost in what scientists call the ‘valley of death’ between research and impact. Mauritius cannot afford such ‘valley of death’ – frankly, no one, not even our patients. The Partnerships and Innovation Division of the NRII is the bridge across that valley. That is why NRII aims to build the talent base that our economy demands: scientists, engineers, technologists, researchers. It will grow a research intensive, innovative and entrepreneurial economy. Most importantly, it aims to turn researchers into entrepreneurs through mentorship, through training, through access to funding for research. Because Mauritius does not need more papers on the shelves. Mauritius needs more entrepreneurs in the marketplace. Spin-off, startups and Mauritius companies built on Mauritian research. This is the ambition; this is the deliverable. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, section 15 creates the Board of Governors of competence – proven competence in research, science, finance, technology transfer, higher education, entrepreneurship, policy or public administration. Thus, competence, results and accountability are built in from day one. Section 23 establishes the National Research Institute Coordinating Council. It includes every government research body like FAREI, MCIA, MOI and other public funded agencies, convened by mandate every two months to align efforts and eliminate duplication. Because the hardest problems like climate, food, cities, health sit at the intersection of disciplines, not within any single one. Breakthrough comes from teams and above all, excellence demands convergence. Section 25 establishes Scientific Advisory Council. Five independent experts from academia, industry and research organisations will form part of that. Their mandate: protect quality, enforce rigor, ensure relevance and ensure that the reports, the biannual reports are tabled on time. This builds transparency and quality into the institution's DNA. Part V – we have introduced financial discipline from day one. There is a General Fund and the auditor will be the Director of Audit, the independent audit authority of this Republic. Clearly, this is bold but disciplined, ambitious but answerable, strong but properly governed. Section 31 vests the Institute with the right to patent, licence, sell and generate royalties. We are building a knowledge economy. Intellectual property is its currency. Sections 43 and 44 ensure a smooth, lawful transition. Every MRIC officer is protected – same terms, conditions, pension rights. No one loses the job, no one loses the pension, no one is left behind. This is clearly not a reckless change. It is a lawful reform but a necessary reform. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is this Bill really about? It is about whether Mauritius is serious about the future. Do we want to remain reactive or become strategic? Do we want fragmented effort or coordinated action? Do we want policy-based assumption or policy based on evidence? Do we want to keep old structures because they are comfortable or build new structures because the times demand them? The Government has made its choice. We choose science, we choose research, we choose innovation, we choose coordination, we choose the future. To every researcher, every scientist, every engineer, every doctoral student, every Mauritian who left because they could not see a future here for the work they love, this Bill is for you. The NRII says that your work matters, your discoveries have a home, your career can be built here. Your country needs what you know. The race is on. The leading nations are pulling away and Mauritius, No. 1 in Africa, one of the fastest climbers on earth, is not going to sit in the stands and watch. Together, we are going to compete. We are going to discover; we are going to build; we are going to win. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the national interest demands modern institution. It demands courage and it demands NRII. We are not merely establishing an institute; we are building the future. It is with full conviction and profound pride that I commend the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill to this august Assembly. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Dr. Boolell rose and seconded. Question put and agreed to.

Thank you. I suspend the Sitting for half an hour. At 4.42 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 5.21 p.m., with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Yes, hon. Leader of the Opposition. (5.22 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to intervene today on the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill. Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Minister on the Bill, and allow me to make it very clear from the start. We support stronger research and innovation. We support evidence-based policy, but, Madam Speaker, we do not support legislation that centralises power, weakens independence, and risks turning science into a tool of political convenience. This Bill in front of the House today, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, repeals the Mauritius Research and Innovation Council Act of 2019. In doing so, Madam Speaker, it replaces a coordinating council by a centralised institute. On paper, the change sounds efficient. However, in practice, Madam Speaker, it raises some serious concerns. I shall, during my intervention, Madam Speaker, deal with some of the key clauses of the Bill and explain why they matter and what I said earlier. Now, let me start with Clause 3, that is, the National centralised body in applied research and innovation. In fact, Madam Speaker, this Clause deals with centralisation without the proper safeguards. The Bill establishes the institute as the National centralized body on applied research. True it is that centralisation can reduce duplication. Nevertheless, that specific Clause gives the institute sweeping powers to conduct research, commission studies, and shape policies without clear limits. And this raises some serious questions. For example, where is the protection for university-led research? What is the guarantee that independent, curiosity-driven science will not be sidelined? And allow me, Madam Speaker, at this stage, to give you an example. Let us imagine that the University of Mauritius has spent 10 years building expertise, for example, in coral reef restoration, and they have published peer-reviewed studies. They have trained local students. Now, let's say, for example, that under this Bill, a Ministry needs a quick report on coastal resilience. Instead of partnering with the university, the Ministry goes directly to the new institute. And the institute under pressure to deliver fast results, commissions a short- term study using external consultants. The university's long-term work is sidelined; the expertise is ignored. Therefore, their students lose opportunities, Madam Speaker. This is not hypothetical. Centralisation concentrates commissioning power. It creates a single gatekeeper for research funding, Madam Speaker. In a small country like ours, and we should take note of that, that gatekeeper can easily become a bottleneck or a tool for preference. Madam Speaker, under the Mauritius Research and Innovation Council Act, the MRIC model funded diverse actors. This new model, under this present legislation, runs the risk of creating a monopoly on research priorities, and as we all know, monopoly stifles innovation, and we have seen this lesson globally, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Clause 3 also gives the institute power to establish and operate research facilities, laboratories, innovation hubs. Again, this sounds very positive, Madam Speaker. But let me give you two examples. What happens to existing facilities like the Mauritius Oceanography Institute or the Food and Agricultural Research and Extension Institute? Will they be duplicated, Madam Speaker? Will they be defunded in favour of the new institute run labs? This Bill is silent about that. Madam Speaker, silence creates uncertainty, and uncertainty wastes resources. Let me now come to Clause 4, which deals with the role and responsibilities of the institute. Mission- oriented research is useful, but it can be dangerous if misused. Clause 4 mandates mission- oriented research on climate resilience, food security, digital transformation, and social inequality. Although we do agree that these are urgent challenges, we also note, Madam Speaker, that the Clause also empowers the institute to define what counts as national challenge. The question, Madam Speaker, today is, who decides? The board? Yes. But who appoints the board? The answer is the Minister. And to explain what I just said, let me share two concrete examples. The first one refers to food security. The institute, Madam Speaker, could commission a state study favouring high-tech, for example, imported seed varieties, because they promise quick yield gains. But in this case, what about research on traditional climate-resilient crops favoured by small planters? What about agro-ecological methods that protect soil and biodiversity? Madam Speaker, if the institute leadership prioritises quick wins or aligns with commercial interest, alternative approaches get marginalised. The Bill says research must be evidence-based. But like I said earlier the question, today, is: who decides what counts as evidence? The answer is that if the definition is controlled by a politically appointed board, science becomes selective, Madam Speaker. Let me share another example with regard to clause 4, which explicitly mentions, for example, gentrification as a national challenge. Good, Madam Speaker. But let us imagine that the institute commissions a study on, for example, housing policy in Port Louis. The research finds that current policies displace low-income families. Let us say the findings are inconvenient under clause 32, which I shall address at a later stage, the hon. Minister could direct the institute to refocus the study, or, Madam Speaker, delay the publication, or commission a counter-study. What would be the end result then, Madam Speaker? Public policy will not be shaped by independent evidence, but by political comfort. Madam Speaker, allow me here to refer to clause 15(3), which is very clear. The Minister appoints the Chairperson and seven members. No independent nomination panel, and the appointment will require just proven competence in the various fields, which I stated earlier, under clause 15(3)(a). But what is proven competence? How do we define proven competence, Madam Speaker? Based on the nomination made by this Government since the beginning of their mandate in November 2024, I'm worried, Madam Speaker, that when it comes to their definition of competence – we know what has happened – in several institutions of our country. In this specific clause, Madam Speaker, there is clearly no statutory quota for academic or civil society representation. Madam Speaker, what I fear is that this board will be under the control of the Minister. Why I'm saying that, Madam Speaker? For example, the hon. Minister could appoint board members with strong ties to a particular corporate sector. Say, for example, real estate development. That board, then, will oversee research on gentrification, land use, or housing policy. I put the question, therefore, Madam Speaker: is it realistic to expect them to prioritise studies that challenge their associates' interests? The Bill, Madam Speaker, relies on goodwill. Good governance requires, as I said, structural safeguards. Madam Speaker, this brings me to clause 32, which deals with the powers of the hon. Minister, or rather, the hon. Minister's overriding power and this is the most dangerous clause of the Bill. It states – “The Minister may give such directions of a general nature to the Institute, not inconsistent with this Act, as he considers necessary in the national interest and the Institute shall comply with those directions.” Madam Speaker, national interest is not defined. General nature is not defined. This is merely a blank check to the Minister who can direct the institute to prioritise research that supports a political narrative. I am going to give two concrete examples to this House, Madam Speaker. First, let's say we are talking of, in the first instance, on energy policy. Mauritius is debating its energy mix. The institute is asked to study the feasibility of solar micro-grids in rural areas. The research finds that decentralised renewable energy is more cost-effective and equitable than expanding the central grid. But, Madam Speaker, these finding challenges existing utility contracts and investment plans. Under clause 32, the Minister could direct the institute to reassess, for example, the methodology, or broaden the scope indefinitely. The study, Madam Speaker, never sees the light of the day. Public debate is deprived of independent evidence in that case, Madam Speaker. Another example, the institute commission research on wage disparities.

I'm sorry, these are real cases?

No.

This is what you're saying.

This can happen with this piece of legislation, Madam Speaker.

Yes, okay. They're not real cases.

Yes, but, then, we should…

No, no, go ahead. I just want to understand.

Madam Speaker, the data reveals significant gaps linked to gender, region, and ethnicity. Publishing these findings could fuel public debate or Opposition criticism, Madam Speaker. The Minister citing what is in the law – national interest – could direct the institute to delay publication, redact key findings, or commission a balanced counter-study. As a result, research, unfortunately, under this Bill, Madam Speaker, becomes a tool for managing perception and not advancing truth, Madam Speaker. This why I believe this clause will suppress findings that are inconvenient and delay studies on sensitive topics, Madam Speaker. The 2019 Act had no such provision, Madam Speaker. Why add it now? Scientific integrity requires insulation from political pressure. This clause, unfortunately, removes that insulation. Now, allow me to come back to clause 15 and also address clause 20. Board members and the CEO serve three-year terms and are renewable. Madam Speaker, research does not work on three-year cycles. Breakthrough takes time, talent needs of stability. A researcher offered a three-year contract will not commit to a decade-long project, Madam Speaker. You will agree that some of them will leave the country for more secure institutions abroad. We are building a knowledge economy. Yet, were designed governance structures that promote in the short term. The 2019 Act allowed for more flexible tenure arrangements. This Bill locks us into political appointment cycles, unfortunately. Madam Speaker, allow me to address clause 28, which deals with Estimate of Income and Expenditure. It is stated in the Bill that the institute must submit annual estimates for ministerial approval. There is no statutory guarantee for baseline funding. No multi-year budget framework. Madam Speaker, research cannot thrive on annual appropriations subject to political whims. The NRIC had clearer grant disbursement mechanisms. This Bill replaces them with a general fund depending on ministerial discretion. Clause 27 stipulates that all money go into this fund and clause 28 says the Minister can approve only part of the estimates. This is not financial autonomy for an institution. This is financial vulnerability, Madam Speaker. Let me share some views with regard to clause 31, which deals with intellectual property. Clause 31 vests intellectual property rights in the creator. This is positive. It encourages innovation. But the clause also allows the Institute to assign intellectual property to sponsors on such terms and conditions as they may mutually agree. Who negotiates these terms? The Institute's management under whose oversight, a board appointed by the Minister? Madam Speaker, I am afraid that without transparent arm's length negotiation protocols, this provision risks favouring well-connected private interest over public benefit. Where is the requirement for open licencing of publicly funded research? Where is the mandate for public access to findings? I shall now, Madam Speaker, address clauses 23 and 24, which deals with the Coordinating Council and the role and functions of the Council. The Coordinating Council sounds useful. It brings together CEOs of research agency but unfortunately, clauses 24 gives it only advisory functions – it shall advise; it may facilitate; it can contribute. And these are weak verbs, Madam Speaker, in this Bill. Meanwhile, the Institute, under clause 4, has executive powers to commission research, build labs, hire staff. The question is what stops the Institute from bypassing existing agencies? What prevents duplication under the pretext of coordination? What this Bill is creating, Madam Speaker, is a new layer of bureaucracy without resolving the fragmentation it claims to fix. Finally, Madam Speaker, let me come to clause 37, which deals with confidentiality and criminal penalties. Clause 37 imposes strict confidentiality on officers and Board members. Any breach of that clause carries a fine of Rs100,000 and up to two years imprisonment. Therefore, whistleblowers who expose misuse of funds, political interference or flawed research could face jail term. Where is the public interest defence? Where is the protection of those who reveal wrongdoing? Transparency, Madam Speaker, is essential for public trust in science. And this clause chills accountability, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I believe that this piece of legislation requires amendment. Without proper safeguard, this Bill risks creating a research institute that is efficient at delivering political outputs, but ineffective at producing independent transformative science. Madam Speaker, research is not a service industry for Government. It is about challenging assumption and should be able to question power. It, therefore, requires freedom. Madam Speaker. Let me tell the Government of the day that if they want to serve the country, it is not through a politically motivated institute that this will happen, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you. The hon. Minister of Education. (5.47 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to intervene on this extremely important Bill. I rise today to offer my unequivocal support for the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill. This is more than a timely piece of legislation; it is a foundational necessity for the future of our Republic. At the outset, I wish to congratulate the mover of the Bill for coming with this piece of legislation. The hon. Minister, who himself comes from academia, knows the pertinence of research and innovation. Mauritius stands at a decisive crossroads. We have reached the limits of traditional growth. Our aspiration to become a high-income, knowledge-driven economy is bold, but it remains a distant shore until we build a bridge of systematic research and innovation to reach it. This Bill comes at a crucial time when we have geopolitical upheavals, uncertainties and tensions. Still, our zeal is to harness research and innovation. This should not be dampened by what we have just heard by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Having been part of the academia, hon. Minister, for some time, – humbly, I am saying it, without being pedantic, – I think, if it were a viva, it would have got the mention referral. I am not being nasty, but I think, we need to compare likes and likes. The hon. Leader of the Opposition says he supports research and innovation, but he, I do not know how come, he has been looking for nitty-gritty here and there to cause doubt on the Bill, on the intention of the Bill. Earlier during the day, I told a friend: "jaundiced eyes see yellow everywhere." And the hon. Leader of the Opposition has not left behind his political lens. He is talking like a politician. And the more he talks like a politician, the more he insults academia. He insults the corps of researchers, of scientists, Mauritian academics. By the way, by his approach, he sees yellow everywhere; he sees problems everywhere. And I am really disappointed by the way he has delved into such a piece of legislation. Does he want a status quo? Where, on this side of the House, we are vouching for what? For innovation. What do we want? We want to leave a legacy for young emerging researchers, but at the same time, for established researchers. We said it. We do not want research to be fragmented. Unfortunately, I will say from academia's perspective, I would say that both, my ears for those who belong to academia, his ontological and epistemological paradigms are erroneous. And when we do research, we have two words which we should not miss. One is reliability, second one is validity. When we talk about validity, we have dependent validity and independent validity. Now the quality of his analysis, I better not comment more because I have more serious things to do in this House. He is against centralised research and innovation systems. I would ask him to go and look at literature and try to see what are Germany, Japan, United States, Taiwan, Australia doing. Are these countries wrong in bringing a National Institute for Research and Innovation?

Joe, call a friend.

Trop bonne celle-là !

Allow me, Madam Speaker, to delve on this Bill. I will not, like him, wear a political lens. Let me look at this Bill from a Small Island Developing State perspective. When we did our research, for our Masters, for our PhD, at least one chapter or paragraph, we have to look at it being Mauritians because for a Small Island Developing State, perspective changes. This is what the hon. Leader of Opposition completely missed in his analysis. And secondly, I will look at it as the Minister of Education and Human Resource. For a Small Island Developing State (SIDS), research and innovation are not just academic pursuits, they are essential tools for building resilience against unique geographical and economic vulnerabilities like we face. By focusing on targeted technological and systemic shifts, we can transform constraints into competitive advantages. This is what we are proposing through the creation of this institute. Madam Speaker, how do we prepare our country for an economy that is changing faster than ever before? How do we prepare our young people for jobs that do not yet exist? How do we ensure that Mauritius remains competitive in a world where innovation is increasingly determining which countries move forward and which countries fall behind? These are serious national questions. These are not political questions and this Bill responds to those questions. By establishing the National Research and Innovation Institute, Government is creating a stronger national mechanism to support applied research, innovation, evidence-based policy making, the development of new economic sectors by driving the transition of Mauritius into a resilient, competitive, and knowledge-powered economy. This reform is both practical and forward-looking. It strengthens the country's capacity to use research more effectively in addressing national challenges and preparing Mauritius for future economic opportunities. Madam Speaker, I refer to section 6 of the Bill where we can read that the National Research and Innovation Institute shall in collaboration with relevant Ministries, Government Agencies, the private sector and international partners conduct strategic research for the identification. It is not the Minister who will be choosing. I do not know how he was completely misled in his reading of the Bill. Madam Speaker, we are talking about collaboration among different Ministries. I do not think that the hon. Minister will decide what the Minister of Health or Agro will have as policy making. There will be collaboration – feasibility studies, rightly said, market analysis for emerging industries and economic activities, research into the development of the ocean economy, green economy, public health, digital transformation, creative industries, biotechnology, energy sustainability and sovereignty, social inequality, advanced manufacturing, work-life balance and other sectors of strategic national interest. I cannot find how it is being hijacked politically. Madam Speaker, let us be clear, this Bill represents a structural reform of profound national importance. It proposes to reduce duplication. This is perhaps what the Leader of the Opposition wanted. It proposes to reduce duplication and promote interdisciplinary collaboration. Let that be clear. I also wish to thank and acknowledge all those men and women who have been involved in research and innovation over decades and decades, who have contributed in so many groundbreaking research and innovation despite limited resources and difficult circumstances. The pioneers of research and innovation have to be saluted for their commendable work that they have done so far but today, we are going one step further in our wish to equip our country with a sort of one-stop shop for research and innovation by building a critical mass of researchers and scientists to support knowledge- based economy and this is crucial for a Small Island Developing State. Indeed, Mauritius already possesses significant research capability. The problem is that these efforts are currently fragmented, siloed and underleveraged. We are data rich but insight poor because our research is not always strategically aligned with our national goals. Section 5(2) of the Bill clearly stipulates that the Institute may, at the request of any Ministry or Government Agency, second research officers to provide technical assistance to support or conduct the research and preparation of evidence policy briefs, analytical reports and impact assessments. The NRII is going to be a game changer. It sets up a centralised, mission-driven powerhouse designed to – (i) align research with our highest national priorities; (ii) strengthen rigorous evidence into the heart of policy making; (iii) coordinate a scattered ecosystem into a unified force, and (iv) support the emergence of an entirely new economic sector. Madam Speaker, a modern state requires robust analytical capacity to navigate global volatility. The NRII is an investment in governance and efficiency. I repeat it, the NRII is an investment in governance, I would add good governance and efficiency. By rooting our decisions in rigorous data rather than institution, we eliminate waste and ensure that every rupee of public resource is directed towards high impact outcomes. Madam Speaker, as Minister of Education and Human Resource, I see very clearly why this Bill matters so much. Very often, we tell our young people; ‘study hard, work hard, develop yourself, prepare for the future’. But we must also ask ourselves a very important question – are we preparing them to be future ready? A student sitting in a classroom today may enter the labour market in 10 years that will look completely different. Artificial Intelligence is changing industries. Biotechnology is changing industries. Digital transformation is changing industries. Some jobs may disappear; new jobs will emerge. If our education and training systems do not evolve fast enough, we risk preparing young Mauritians for opportunities that may no longer exist. That is why this Bill matters. It will help Mauritius identify future economic sectors and future workforce needs, and once those needs are identified, our schools, technical institutions, universities, and training institutions must respond accordingly. This also requires continued emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education so that our young Mauritians are better positioned to take part in emerging industries and innovation-driven sectors. Madam Speaker, this Bill also recognises something very important. Research cannot remain confined within universities. Government must work with universities. Universities must work with industry. Industry must work with Government.

(Interruptions)

Il s’en va!

Tu pars?

If these institutions continue...

(Interruptions)

If these institutions continue operating...

(Interruptions)

Carry on!

...in isolation, Mauritius loses opportunities.

Don’t be distracted!

No, I will not. Without proper coordination, valuable research outcomes may remain underutilised. Innovation may be delayed and important economic opportunities may be lost. This Bill helps create stronger coordination across these institutions. That is exactly what Mauritius needs. Madam Speaker, let us consider how research can directly solve practical national challenges, for example, in relation to food security. Research can help Mauritius to better determine which crops are best suited for specific regions based on soil condition, climate patterns, and water availability. This can strengthen agricultural planning and improve long- term food resilience. Research can also help Mauritius identify emerging industries and ensure that our education and training institutions are preparing young people for future employment opportunities. Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Education and Human Resource, it is my duty to work on the human capital development. My Ministry will closely collaborate with NRII to stimulate the brain gain effect that is mentioned there. It is imperative to create a proper ecosystem for retention of Mauritian talent. We must provide high-level career path for the nation's brightest students, preventing them from feeling they must move abroad to pursue a career in science or technology. We must rethink skill transformation with the setting up of the NRII. It must act as a bridge between the education system and the labour market, ensuring that the curriculum evolves alongside global technological shifts. Madam Speaker, we should not forget that we need to forge our international prestige and ensure international collaboration. For a small island state like Mauritius to punch above its weight on the global stage, we need to reconsider our role as a regional leader. By specialising in a niche, tropical medicine, oceanography, an island can become a regional hub for excellence, attracting international grants and partnerships. Accurate research will allow the State to speak with more authority in international forums, like the UN or COP summits, backed by empirical evidence of their specific challenges. Madam Speaker, education should move from rote learning to a competency-based curriculum. Research, here, focuses on digital literacy and pedagogical innovations that prepare students for a green and digital economy, ensuring that at-risk learners are not left behind. The Bill proposes to enlist the support of women and youth in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in the field of research and innovation. My Ministry is already collaborating with Mauritius Telecom and the Ministry of ICT to empower our kids and provide them alternative modes of learning. The NRII can act as the bridge between current educational practices and the evolving needs of a modern economy. For a small island state, where human capital is the most valuable resource, it is important that the education system is agile, data-driven, and future-proof. Madam Speaker, education systems often struggle with curriculum lag, where the skills taught in schools do not match the requirements of the job market. The institute can address the skill gap by revamping ongoing research into the local and global market trends, shifts towards the blue economy or green energy to inform periodic curriculum updates. We need to opt for tailored pedagogy by researching how our students learn best, considering language, culture, and the environmental factors, to develop teaching methods that improve literacy and numeracy competencies of our children. Madam Speaker, we need to produce a testing ground for digital tools, ensuring that technology serves the teacher rather than replacing them. Development of interactive pedagogical materials to boost up teaching and learning. Madam Speaker, we need to encourage teachers to become researchers in their own classrooms, helping them identify what works and scaling those successes across the national school network. It is high time that we set up clear, data-backed benchmarks for school performance and teacher efficacy, moving away from subjective assessments towards a standardised culture of excellence. Education is not just about academics. It is about the well-being of the whole child. Psychosocial research will help to investigate the root causes of indiscipline, bullying, or disengagement within schools to develop preventive frameworks rather than purely punitive ones. Impact of mobile phones and tablets on students' well-being also may be researched. The institute will help to bridge the gap between secondary school and tertiary institutions as it will ease the transition from secondary school to the workforce or university. Madam Speaker, I also wish to highlight the issue of talent. Mauritius invests significant resources in education, tertiary development and workforce training. It is, therefore, important that we create sufficient opportunities for highly skilled Mauritians to contribute meaningfully within our economy. We must create an environment where talent can thrive locally, and we must create opportunities for Mauritian researchers and innovators to contribute to national knowledge-based economy. With these words, Madam Speaker, I commend the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill to the House. Thank you.

Yes, hon. Etwareea! I would appeal to Members to be concise because we have a long list of orators. Thank you. Go ahead, hon. Etwareea! (6.09 p.m.)

Madame la présidente, je voulais presque vous demander pardon. Tout à l'heure quand le leader de l'opposition était en train de faire son discours, il a parlé du développement des industries basées sur les connaissances traditionnelles. J'ai trouvé cela très intéressant et je n’ai pas pu m'empêcher de lui poser, d'une position assise, des questions. Auxquelles, évidemment, il n'a pas répondu. Peut-être qu’il n'a pas entendu. Mais il n'a pas répondu.

Moi, j'ai entendu !

Vous l'avez entendu, mais il n'a pas répondu. Je suis désolé, Madame la présidente, de dire que le leader de l'opposition, aujourd'hui, a fait un discours que pour faire le discours. Il aurait dû, au fait, dans un débat comme celui d'aujourd'hui, s'abstenir parce qu'il est resté dans les généralités. Il n'a pas apporté des points importants sur un sujet aussi important pour notre croissance et pour notre économie de demain. Quand j'ai appris qu'on allait débattre de ce projet de loi, je me suis dit, mais pourquoi on ne l’a pas fait auparavant ? Parce que tous les pays de la planète, allons dire tous les pays, peut-être les pays africains un peu moins. Mais même là, il ne faut pas sous-estimer les pays africains ou les pays d'Amérique du Sud qui ont tous établi des centres de recherche et de l'innovation parce qu'ils savent que c'est l'innovation qui sera la matière première qui fera vivre les économies de demain. Comme nous, on a vécu sur la canne à sucre, ensuite sur le textile, la finance, l'immobilier, what next? Peut-être le ministre, aujourd'hui, est en train de poser les premiers jalons pour notre économie de demain. Donc, c'est normal que je le félicite. Je félicite le ministre Dr. Sukon qui, somme toute, entend donner à la recherche, à l'innovation et à la toute-puissance – parce qu'il reconnaît la toute-puissance intellectuelle mauricienne – leurs lettres de noblesse et leur juste place au sein de l'économie mauricienne. Son message est limpide. Nous ne produisons pas de riz, nous ne produisons pas d'essence, mais nous pouvons produire des idées. Nous ne sommes pas dans la beauté du geste. On est dans l'impératif économique. Les pays qui progressent le plus investissent dans la recherche et l'innovation. Comme je disais avant, Madame la présidente, je ne comprends pas pourquoi on n'a pas créé une telle instance auparavant. Elle répond pourtant à des aspirations qui ne sont pas nouvelles. Elle renforce la compétitivité, le ministre l'a dit, elle encourage l'innovation et elle soutient l'émergence d'une économie fondée sur la connaissance. En réalité, le ministre Sukon installe aujourd'hui, une usine à idées. Les idées, oui, Madame la présidente, elles comptent. Nous savons que le plus grand hôtelier du monde n'a pas qu’une seule chambre et que le plus grand service de taxi n'a pas qu’une seule voiture. Bien sûr, je parle de booking.com et de Uber, des idées simples mais qui brassent des milliards, aujourd'hui. Je vais axer le reste de mon discours sur un aspect que je trouve important et pour mettre toutes les chances de notre côté, je pense qu’il faudra accorder une importance à cela. Le projet de loi ne limite pas le champ d'action de cet institut, mais forcément, les recherches se dérouleront dans nos domaines de prédilections : la mer, les nouvelles technologies des communications, les services financiers s'y prêtent à merveille. Mais surtout, notre pays avec sa biodiversité unique et riche – 39% de nos plantes sont endémiques, – ainsi que nos connaissances traditionnelles offrent des perspectives illimitées. Madame la présidente, qui dit l'innovation dit aussi la propriété intellectuelle. Nous devons protéger l'innovation issue de notre patrimoine unique. Il faut se donner les moyens de gérer les brevets issus des projets financés par l'État. Il faut aussi garantir un partage équitable des bénéfices. Il faut prévenir toute biopiraterie et cela est important car nous savons que la biopiraterie est, aujourd'hui, une forme moderne des pillages des ressources naturelles par les laboratoires européennes et américaines. La biopiraterie menace directement les nations qui, comme la nôtre, possèdent une diversité unique et des riches traditions, bien sûr, médicale et agricole. Nous nous souvenons tous lorsque nous avions de la fièvre ou un peu de toux quand on était gamin, la grand-mère ou la maman nous donnait un peu de sirop de la feuille d'ayapana.

“Ti Rober”.

Voilà! Madame la présidente, vous avez certainement lu des ouvrages de l'ancienne Présidente de la République, Madame Ameenah Gurib-Fakim, en la matière. Notamment, guide illustré de la flore de Maurice et de l'Océan Indien. Lesser known underutilised crops ou encore plantes médicinales de Maurice, pharmacognosie, phytochimie et études comparatives des données ethnobotaniques. L'île Maurice compte, Madame la présidente, 315 plantes endémiques qui ont un potentiel médicinal. Je vais vous donner cette petite information. Selon l'OMS, 25% des médicaments modernes viennent des plantes. Les marchés mondiaux des médicaments pèseront R 100 milliards en 2030. Si Maurice capte 0,0.1 % grâce à ses plantes endémiques, cela nous fera R 5 milliards par année. Il y a une filière, il y a un fil à tirer, Madame la présidente, et ça, on peut seulement le faire grâce à la protection intellectuelle et en combattant de façon efficace la biopiraterie. La bonne nouvelle, comme je disais, Madame la présidente, nous sommes assis sur une mine d'or, au fait. Quand je parlais de ces 315 plantes aux potentielles médicinales, c'est notre pétrole vert. C'est notre pétrole vert qui peuvent nous apporter de la croissance de demain. Ça c'est la bonne nouvelle, il y a aussi une mauvaise nouvelle, que ce sont des entreprises étrangères qui exploitent nos plantes, nos remèdes et nos connaissances léguées par nos grands-mères, comme je vous ai dit avant. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’il n'existe pas des registres centralisés des plantes mauriciennes brevetées. Pourquoi ? Parce que la majorité des travaux de l'université de Maurice, du MSIRI reste au stade académique. L'étape suivante, c'est-à-dire l'isolement du principe actif, le brevet et ensuite le financement, la transformation en produit commercialisable nous manque. Nos chercheurs s'exilent. Résultat, aucun brevet majeur mauricien n’est recensé dans les bases de données de l'OMPI depuis ces 10 dernières années – l'OMPI, étant l'Organisation mondiale pour la protection intellectuelle, basée à Genève. L'IP Office mauricien ne gère rien de la biodiversité locale, alors que nous avons tout ce potentiel. Et pourtant, et cela est important, des brevets déposés à Londres, Paris, New York, à Genève, des brevets citent des specimens from Mauritius sans que l'IP Office mauricien n’ait quelconques traces des material transfer agreement. C'est un peu technique, mais nous, nos plantes sont exploitées par des compagnies à l'étranger et nous ne savons même pas qu’elles ont ce potentiel. En gros, cela veut dire échantillon sorti de Maurice, brevet déposé à l'étranger, zéro retour pour Maurice. Le protocole de Nagoya 2020, si je ne me trompe pas, Nagoya, oblige les détenteurs de brevet à déclarer l'origine de la molécule. Mais voilà, Maurice a signé le protocole de Nagoya, mais il ne l'a pas intégré dans sa loi nationale. Ce qui veut dire que n'importe qui peut breveter un produit dont la matière première est basée à Maurice, mais le produit final sort des laboratoires à l'étranger.

Mais faites le lien avec le projet de loi, s'il vous plaît. Faites le lien avec le projet de loi, des recherches.

Je vais y venir, Madame la présidente. Sans une protection intellectuelle efficace, nous laissons la porte grande ouverte au vol de notre biodiversité. Il y a trop de cas dans l'histoire qui montre que les voleurs sont à l'œuvre, au fait, ils sont à l'œuvre depuis le début. Vous savez, dans les expéditions coloniales, quand il y avait des expéditions qui partaient en Afrique, il y avait toujours des botanistes qui partaient avec pour regarder qu'est-ce qu'il y avait de précieux comme plante. Pour faire le lien, Madame, je propose que le National Research and Innovation Institute agisse comme le gardien de notre biodiversité.

Voilà !

Qu'il soit tenu de publier chaque année un rapport, pas seulement de l'audit, des dépenses et des rentrées financières, un rapport d'impact qui soit soumis au Parlement et mis à la disposition du public. Ce rapport devrait présenter les montants investis, les résultats obtenus, les brevets déposés et les partenariats signés car la transparence est la clé de cette confiance et la science publique doit rendre des comptes à la nation. Je vais terminer, Madame, en disant que nous sommes une petite île et puis nous sommes très riches en biodiversité, mais peut-être nous n'avons pas tous les moyens. Donc, nous devrions nous ouvrir à la coopération internationale. La richesse moderne n'a pas de frontières. L'innovation se nourrit de la coopération entre nations ; le futur institut doit être un pont entre la science mauricienne et le reste du monde. Je vois trois alliances possibles et il ne faut pas faire la fine bouche. La Chine, première nation au monde au nombre de dépôt de brevet, selon l'Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle. Collaborer avec la Chine, c'est accéder à une immense capacité technologique, de moyens financiers, mais aussi au super calculateur chinois. L'Inde, partenaire historique et culturel majeur de Maurice, ce grand pays a su développer des modèles d'innovation frugale, adaptés aux pays en voie de développement comme le nôtre. Enfin, on ne peut pas oublier nos partenaires africains avec qui nous partageons des défis communs. Et cela est important, santé, résilience climatique, énergie propre. Mais toute cette coopération doit être équilibrée. Nous devons veiller, et cela est important, à un transfert réciproque des compétences et une reconnaissance mutuelle des droits des propriétés intellectuelles. Ce nouvel institut ne doit pas être un lieu clos réservé à quelques experts. Il doit devenir un catalyseur des créativités nationales, un pont entre chercheurs, entrepreneurs, agriculteurs, artistes, jeunes parce que l'innovation ce n'est pas seulement inventer…

Oui, vous vous égarez un peu dans les papiers là.

L'innovation, Madame la présidente, ce n’est pas seulement un produit qui a travaillé les laboratoires. Il faut, en fin de compte, trouver des solutions à nos problèmes quotidiens, sinon l'innovation ne sert à rien. Je dirais qu'on a raté la révolution industrielle au 19ème siècle. On n'y était même pas là. On a raté la révolution numérique, on n'était pas assez développé. Nous n'avons pas le droit de rater la révolution de brevet au 21ème siècle car le brevet et la protection de ce brevet sont bien les fruits de la recherche et de l'innovation et la source de notre future croissance économique. Merci, Madame la présidente.

Je vous remercie, c'était très intéressant. Hon. François ! (6.23 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before proceeding with my intervention of this National Research Innovation Institute Bill (No. IV of 2026), as I have a floor, allow me on behalf of the OPR Party and the people of Rodrigues to extend officially our warm congratulations on the symbolic nomination of the first female Deputy Prime Minister and today acting Prime Minister, hon. Ms Arianne Navarre-Marie, following the Prime Minister's choice. This marks a meaningful new chapter for our Republic, reflecting the growing role of women in leadership and serving as an inspiration to women and young girls who aspire to higher responsibilities in politics, public service and national leadership. We have moved from dream to reality for women in our Republic. I wish the hon. DPM, as she continues to serve our Republic and beyond her commitment to national unity, may she champion reconciliation and support women in facing the climate crisis and its multifaceted impacts. May her new responsibilities be marked by progress, success and continued positive impact on our Republic. Thank you. Madam Speaker, coming back to the Bill, in his last budget speech on strategic economic renewal, the hon. Prime Minister prioritised shaping an innovative Mauritius in the government program. The ambition of this Bill to establish a National Research and Innovation Institute as presented by hon. Dr. Sukon, whom I congratulate, to replace the Mauritius Research and Innovation Council, is sound and in principle a good Bill. Mauritius needs a centralised mission-oriented research body if it is to transition from a service economy to a genuine knowledge-powered economy. I acknowledge that intent must translate into delivery and it is delivery that this House must scrutinise. So, my question is, how will this Bill’s ambitions translate into on the ground research delivery in Mauritius and critically in Rodrigues? Architecturally, the Bill is elegant with five divisions, a scientific advisory council and a coordinating council. Now, let me comment on a few clauses to seek greater clarity. Clause 2 – Interpretation. The word innovation is not defined anywhere in the Bill as this is a national institute. Innovation drives four key divisions as listed in Clause 8(b) to (e), which define responsibilities in their respective clauses – • Partnership and Innovation Division, Clause 12; • Strategy Division, Clause 10; • Capacity Building and Talent Development Division, Clause 13, and • The Intellectual Property Framework, Clause 31. Yet, the term innovation has no statutory definition. Without a definition, any activity could be labelled innovative and funded accordingly with no accountability framework. Clauses around mission-oriented research and national research and innovation priorities should be transparent about how priorities are set to avoid a drift towards narrow sector specific priorities. My question is – who decides which mission-oriented research projects take priority each year? Is it the institute, the board or the Minister? Clause 30 – Powers of a Minister, grants sweeping general directive powers as this is standard in our legislation. However, we must ensure this does not compromise the scientific independence of the institute to preserve integrity and objectivity. Clause 16(e) requires the board to monitor and commission independent evaluations every five years. Madam Speaker, in our fast-changing society, five years may be too long to detect underperformance. Can Mauritius and Rodrigues afford to wait half a decade not to embark in what the hon. Dr. Sukon said, valley of death gap, like development of penicillin? Madam Speaker, Key Performance Indicators are crucial. I propose the hon. Minister to introduce an obligation to publish annual KPIs including number of research outputs published per year, Rodrigues specific research and engagement met per annum, private sector partnerships and co-funding arrangement activated. Madam Speaker, Clause 31 on Intellectual Property is the most commercially consequential and requires robust expansion. The Bill should clearly outline how IP generated by the institute or by researchers using its resources will be commercially exploited so that Mauritius can capture the economic value. We should look to effective international models. For example, Ireland's research commercialisation framework and Singapore's A*STAR which pushes science towards real world outcomes and contribute significantly to GDP and employment. Intellectual property is not just a legal right; it is a revenue stream and FDI magnet and a driver of high skilled job creation. I hope the institute will bridge the gap between science and market ready solution from lab to start-up and from lab to market. Clause 2 (d) mentions co-funding arrangement and tax incentive programs, but these are functions, not entitlements. The framework for tax benefits must be laid out in the Income Tax Act or in the Investment Promotion Act, not left to regulatory discretion. And my question is – will the Ministry of Finance commit to amending the Tax Framework to create research and development incentives and a patent commercialisation regime that give this institute intellectual property outputs real economic teeth? Singapore and Ireland generate hundreds of millions from IP commercialisation annually. Mauritius, as rightly mentioned by hon. Dr. Sukon, is ranked 53rd on global innovation index and number one in Sub-Saharan Africa. And Mauritius has the legal framework to begin this journey if the Ministry of Finance aligns with what this Bill promises, which can be addressed in the next budget itself. Madam Speaker, I now address Rodrigues specifically. Rodrigues represent an ideal territory to serve as a national sustainable island living laboratory as it is itself a natural laboratory for research. I will elaborate during my speech on how innovative solutions addressing climate resilience, food security, sustainable tourism, ocean economy development, water and renewable energy transition can be piloted in Rodrigues. Madam Speaker, I note that there is no specific definition for Rodrigues or outer islands, nor any geographic scope in the Bill. The Bill is silent on whether the institute mandate extends to Rodrigues, Agalega or outer islands despite mentions of collaboration with government agencies. This omission, I believe, may affect funding, research coverage and whether Rodrigues’ specific challenges fall within the statute's scope. A definition of national that explicitly includes Rodrigues and outer islands would be a step forward. Madam Speaker, during budget debates 2025-2026, I noted Mauritius' new culture of innovation as a policy priority. This is in line with my party OPR’s vision of Rodrinnovation, Rodrigues new innovation culture, a model of innovation, technology and modernity. Rodrigues has strong potential in priority sectors such as – • Rodrigues blue and economy innovation; • Rodrigues sustainable food system; • Rodrigues climate innovation and resilience; • Rodrigues circular economy; • Rodrigues community and grassroots innovation, and • Rodrigues supporting grassroots and youth innovation. Madam Speaker, Rodrigues social fabric provides a solid foundation for social innovation where social needs meet environmental sustainability and prosperity. I propose that Government should establish alongside the institute what I call a social innovation driving unit with appropriate budgetary support and resources. Development research for Rodrigues social innovations reflecting local culture remains a fertile area of future research while we pursue le rêve Rodriguais. Health issues, including cancer and NCDs and demographic changes, are important avenues for Rodrigues focus research. To strengthen Rodrigues presence, the NRII Bill should empower the new NRII research branch with greater capacity, facilities and staffing following the 2024 fire that destroyed the MRIC Office thereat. Madam Speaker, I propose an amendment to the Bill to create a Rodrigues Research and Innovation Centre or a directorate with necessary staffing in collaboration with the Rodrigues Regional Assembly. This would integrate Rodrigues specificity, challenges and opportunities into the national innovation system in a concrete and actionable way. This inclusion will officially recognise Rodrigues as a distinctive component of the institute with a defined mission and responsibilities for Rodrigues specific programs, coordinating activities and supporting the Regional Assembly policy needs under the guidance and collaborations of the institute and the Regional Assembly. Madam Speaker, I strongly believe that this Bill offers a strategic opportunity for Mauritius to position Rodrigues as a sustainable island innovation demonstration territory and national innovation priority by strengthening the NRII Rodrigues branch. As it aligns with OPR's New Horizon Vision 2051 for Rodrigues, moving towards excellence in all what we do, fostering an inclusive research community and delivering benefits for the people of Rodrigues and Rodrigues society at large. This Bill must explicitly enable a Rodrigues branch or directorate with clear, I mentioned it again, clear staffing, budgetary autonomy and a mandate to co-design programs in collaboration with the Regional Assembly. I propose also the creation of a Rodrigues Research and Innovation Fund within the budget framework to finance pilot projects, capacity buildings and public private partnership in Rodrigues. Such a structure will empower Rodrigues to pilot climate resilience, blue economy solutions, sustainable tourism and youth led innovation in a way that scales nationally. It will also ensure transparent accountability with dedicated reporting on Rodrigues research outputs and impact. Madam Speaker, to conclude, I urge the House to consider amendments that define Rodrigues within the geographic scope of NRII and to set binding mechanism for collaboration between the institute, the Regional Assembly and the new NRII Branch, Rodrigues. I urge thoughtful consideration of proposed amendments to ensure that Rodrigues is explicitly, again, included, adequately funded and empowered to act as a national hub for innovation and sustainable development. These amendments will cement Rodrigues role as a strategic innovation demonstration territory within the Republic of Mauritius and help realise the OPR Rodrinnovation vision. I have to mention OPR, I love it! Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. Minister Dr. Sukon for introducing this, Bill. Mauritius can harness the full potential of NRII to drive inclusive growth, protect our environment and unlock opportunities especially for our youth through a non-fragmented and coordinated approach to build a better future for our Republic. With these words, I thank you for your kind attention.

Thank you. Thank you for keeping good time. Yes, hon. Baboolall! (6.37 p.m.)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To allow me to intervene on the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill. While this Bill seeks to bury the Innovation Council Act of 2019, we must ask ourselves, are we burying a failed system or simply redressing its ghost in a new uniform? Madam Speaker, we are told this is a landmark step towards a resilient knowledge- powered economy. We heard those same soaring adjectives in 2019. Yet, here we are again. If we do not fix the engine of our institutional design, then in 2099, a new Government will bring a new Bill to repeal this one, to innovate again. Madam Speaker, the Republic cannot afford to move in circles while the rest of the world moves forward. Madam Speaker, we embrace the ambition of this Bill, that desire to harness the ocean, green and digital economies. However, the concerns raised today strike at the heart of our national dilemma. The cavernous gap between legislative intent and operational reality, structural integrity is rarely achieved through the next through the text of a law alone. Madam Speaker, to determine if this Bill can truly eradicate systematic underperformance, we must look for the specific teeth within the legislation. Does the Bill move beyond simply noting failures? Does it introduce personal consequences for accounting officers who oversee wasted expenditure? Does it provide for independent mid-project audits that can halt a failing project before billions are lost, rather than relying on a postmortem from the Auditor General? Does it bridge the administrative capacity gap by mandating specific qualifications for project managers? Or does it leave appointment to the same system that produced these nil results? Madam Speaker, history suggests that without a fundamental shift in accountability, new laws become mere paperwork, masking recurring failures. The Republic cannot afford for noble intentions to be the only thing on our ledger. Under the 2019 Act, the Minister appointed the chairpersons. Billions in taxpayers' money were lost. Now again, the hon. Minister will appoint the CEO and the chairperson. If we do not change the system, why should we expect a different result? Madam Speaker, the Bill suffers from the vanguard of centralisation. By granting the hon. Minister total dominion over the appointment of the board and the CEO, we are not building a sanctuary for science. We are building a playground for patronage. When research follows the preferences of power rather than the pursuit of truth, it ceases to be innovation. It becomes propaganda. Madam Speaker, let us look at clause 34, protection from liability – “No liability, civil or criminal, shall attach to the Institute, the Board, a board member, a Committee, a committee member or any officer in respect of any act done or omitted to be done in good faith in the discharge of its or his functions under this Act.” It offers a blanket of immunity for good faith actions. Madam Speaker, good faith must not become a sanctuary for incompetence. Clause 34 should be revisited, as protection from liability must never extend to gross negligence, wilful misconduct, or fraud. Without this line in the sand, accountability is an illusion. Vouching for innovation with taxpayers' money needs accountability. Madam Speaker, the Director of Audit has warned us repeatedly. Our State has eyes, but no muscles. More than 50% of audit recommendations are ignored. This is the mechanical reality we must face. If the system is a broken engine, changing the driver will not make the car go faster. Without mechanisms to penalise non-results, this Bill is merely a performative announcement. It is all noise and no motion. Madam Speaker, innovation is not a solitary act. It is a collaborative one. Yet, this Bill excludes civil society and industry from the boardroom, creating a dangerous echo chamber. We do not need insularity; we need an ecosystem. Madam Speaker, Mauritius does not suffer from a lack of intelligence. It suffers from lack of institutional change. Madam Speaker, as long as we prefer the loudness of political outrage over the precision of structural analysis, we will continue to witness failures with remarkable accuracy. We must prove beyond political tribalism towards institutional literacy. We need an independent appointment committee, not just for this institute, but for the soul of our public service to ensure transparency is the rule, not the exception. Madam Speaker, unless we move from rhetoric to reality, we are not innovating. We are merely recycling promises. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Parapen. (6.44 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Social Integration, Social Security and National Solidarity (Mr K. Parapen): Madame la présidente, le ministre, l'honorable Sukon, nous a ramené plus tôt en 1928 à la découverte de la pénicilline. Je propose de ramener la Chambre à 1945 avec un certain Percy Spencer. Américain, ingénieur autodidacte, il travaille à l'époque pour la compagnie Raytheon, une grande entreprise américaine de la défense qui à l'époque a innové en créant le radar, une des grandes avancées de la Seconde guerre mondiale, peut-être la seconde plus grande avancée derrière la fission nucléaire et l'arme nucléaire. Et Percy Spencer est debout devant un magnétron actif, un engin qui émet des micro- ondes. Et à ce moment-là, il va être témoin de d'un phénomène assez bizarre. La barre chocolatée qu'il a dans sa poche a fondu. Et au lieu d'être en colère, voilà que sa curiosité est éveillée. Il ramène du pop-corn et le rapproche du magnétron. Et voilà que le pop-corn aussi se transforme immédiatement. Le lendemain, il ramène un œuf et l'œuf éclate au visage de son collègue. Voilà à peu près comment le four à micro-ondes a été inventé, Madame la présidente. Il faut se rappeler qu’on est dans une période très sombre de l'histoire, en 1945, et que cette découverte, qui va ensuite devenir le four à micro-ondes, est faite dans un dans un local destiné à la recherche militaire. Il y a beaucoup de Mauriciens et de Mauriciennes avec qui j'ai la chance d'interchanger et qui me demandent souvent quelles sont les solutions pour le futur de notre pays, surtout dans les conditions actuelles. Et bien sûr, comme tout le monde ici, je suis sûr qu'on a des idées qu'on voudrait implémenter pour l'avenir de ce pays. Mais, j'ai une réponse constante à cela : il faut donner à notre pays un environnement propice à l'innovation. Mais la culture de l'innovation, elle ne s'improvise pas. Pour que l'innovation puisse se produire, il y a tout un écosystème à mettre en place. Et c'est pour cela que la découverte du four à micro-ondes par Percy Spencer nous rappelle que cet écosystème ne vient pas du jour au lendemain. On ne peut pas parler d'innovation sans parler du de la recherche et du développement, le R&D. Et quand on fait un constat à travers le monde par rapport à la recherche et le développement, on voit quand même que différents pays sont à différents stades en termes de dépenses par rapport à la recherche et le développement. Là, j'ai avec moi une liste de 10 pays qui investissent au moins 3% de leur PIB dans la recherche et le développement – l'Allemagne, l'Autriche, la Belgique, la Suisse, le Japon, les États-Unis, la Suède, Taïwan, la Corée du Sud et Israël. Et je pense que tout le monde sera d'accord pour dire que ces pays sont véritablement en avance sur beaucoup d'autres pays à travers le monde en ce qu'il s'agit d'innovation. Et à Maurice, le budget dépensé pour la recherche et le développement est à peine de 0.25% du PIB. Donc, le projet de loi du ministre, l'honorable Sukon, est un excellent projet de loi. Il a le mérite d'orienter la recherche nationale ainsi que l'innovation vers des enjeux réels, chose qui était complètement absente de la précédente législation. C'est un une excellente initiative de lier la recherche et l'innovation à des problématiques récurrentes de notre société – souveraineté alimentaire, souveraineté énergétique, résilience climatique, économie océan, économie verte, biotechnologie et j'en passe. Ce sont des problèmes récurrents et ce sont des enjeux où on a un retard considérable. Donc, lier ce nouveau projet de loi à ces problématiques ou à ces enjeux, est salutaire parce qu’on ne fait pas de la recherche que pour faire de la recherche et pour épater la galerie. On fait de la recherche parce qu'on recherche et on a envie de trouver des solutions concrètes à des problèmes récurrents. Sauf que, malgré toute la bonne volonté du ministre, même si ce projet de loi est un excellent projet de loi, si on ne donne pas les moyens de faire de ce projet de loi un succès, la recherche et l'innovation seront que sur papier. Parce que vouloir innover sans s'en donner les moyens, c'est un peu comme vouloir gagner une compétition sans y avoir participé. C'est très compliqué. Et, c'est dans cet esprit que je pense qu'il est grand temps que le pays, le gouvernement, l'État se donne les moyens de ses ambitions. Et aujourd'hui, en tant que député de ce gouvernement, mais surtout citoyen, ayant à cœur l'avancement de notre pays, je fais un plaidoyer pour qu’au moins 1% du PIB de la République soit investi dans la recherche et le développement annuellement. Et bien sûr, je ne demande pas à ce que cet argent provienne uniquement des caisses de l'État, mais comme une société, comme une économie avec des partenariats avec le privé et des collaborateurs internationaux. 1% du PIB représente à peu près R 7 milliards. Avec R 7 milliards, on a quand même un budget suffisant pour faire des projets pilotes à moyenne échelle parce que l'innovation est souvent accompagnée d'échecs – les entrepreneurs le savent mieux que d'autres – toutes les idées n'aboutissent pas à un succès retentissant. Mais la beauté de l'innovation, c'est que du moment qu'on a un succès, cela peut facilement effacer neuf échecs. Et c'est dans cet état d'esprit que ce projet de loi doit être vu. Je suis sûr que cet institut va venir de l'avant avec plein d'idées, avec beaucoup de recommandations. Mais si on n'arrive pas à les mettre en pratique, à au moins essayer de voir qu'est-ce que cela va donner dans la République de Maurice, incluant chez nos frères et sœurs Rodriguais, c'est un peu un coup d'épée dans l'eau. Les innovateurs sont des perturbateurs du statu quo parce qu'ils posent deux questions fondamentales ; pourquoi faisons-nous les choses de cette façon et que se passerait-il si on faisait les choses différemment ? Et bien sûr, quand on parle d’innovation, pour la majorité des personnes, l’innovation est souvent rattachée à la technologie. Quand on parle d’innovation, on pense à l’intelligence artificielle, on pense au large language models, on pense à la technologie informatique, aux microprocesseurs et tout, mais on ne peut réduire l’innovation seulement à la technologie. Il y a d’autres innovations qui sont extrêmement importantes pour une société, et là pour conclure, j’aurai envie de parler de l’innovation sociétale. Maurice est prisonnier du statu quo par rapport à son modèle de gouvernance, son système électoral depuis bientôt 60 ans, et aujourd’hui quand on pense à innover, à venir de l’avant avec un nouveau modèle, un nouveau contrat, certains qui n’aspirent pas probablement au changement mettent de l’avant la loi de Murphy – Murphy’s Law – “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong”. D’ailleurs, cette loi, elle n’est basée sur aucun fondement scientifique, mais cela rassure ceux qui ne veulent pas que l’innovation sociétale aboutisse parce que, quand on veut de l’innovation sociétale, il faut se donner les moyens et les moyens à cette question, ce ne sont pas des moyens financiers, mais uniquement une question de courage politique. Donc, pour terminer je vais reprendre deux phrases que le ministre, l’honorable Dr. Sukon a mentionné. Il a dit – “What we want to achieve is not what Mauritius has been but what Mauritius should now become.” Et il a aussi dit – “Do we want to keep the old structures because they keep us comfortable?” Vive l’innovation, vive les nouveaux modèles, vive le nouveau monde, vive le mauricianisme. Merci.

Merci. Yes, hon. Narsinghen! (6.56 p.m.) The Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade (Mr H. Narsinghen): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very important Bill and I will comment on seven points. I have to explain the context of this Bill and my second point, I will deal with the reality of developing countries where the Minister and the Ministry of Higher Education has chosen pragmatism over prestige and I think that with all due respect, the Leader of the Opposition is not trying to make that distinction between what is known as fundamental research as opposed to applied research. Now, Madam Speaker, this Bill is also trying to bridge the chasm, that is, we know about the Triple Helix Model and this Bill, with my colleague, Minister Dr. Sukon, we are shifting from the Triple Helix Model to a better model, what I would call a Multiple Helix Model. And then, Madam Speaker, this Bill is also trying to do away with red tapism and whereby we are trying to empower researchers, but also to rope in civil servants. And also, very important, I heard my learned friend, hon. Baboolall mentioning that civil society is not being involved. Then, Madam Speaker, who is a researcher? Is a researcher not part of civil society? And also, very important in the Bill, the Minister and members of the staff of the Ministry have not forgotten the diaspora. We are going to make appeal to members of the diaspora because we got a number of researchers in US, in France and in many other countries, and we need these people. And also, I will deal if I have time, about the financial accountability, a point which was raised by my learned friend, hon. Baboolall. Madame la présidente, nous vivons dans une période, je dirais très difficile de notre histoire ; très difficile, mais en même temps une période exaltante. Aujourd’hui, nous parlons beaucoup d’AI, l’intelligence artificielle. Nous parlons de la biotechnologie, nous parlons de la numérisation. Nous parlons de recherches médicales, nous parlons de l’environnement. So, today, we stand at a very critical juncture in the economic and social history of our republic. And therefore, my colleague, hon. Minister, Dr. Sukon, is right. Either we adapt or we perish and with this Bill, we have chosen to adapt, Madam Speaker. The global economy does not wait for latecomers and technological advancement does not pause for nations tangled in bureaucratic inertia. We do not have natural resources, the Minister mentioned – we do not have oil, we do not have gold, we do not have other minerals. And at the same time, we cannot have a labour-intensive economy, especially with the demographic crisis with the declining population. So, we do not have any choice than to have a knowledge-based economy. And the Explanatory Memorandum, well drafted, hammers on innovation, mission- oriented research and not only abstract or theoretical research as it used to be. Furthermore, what is important now with this Bill is that there will be coordination and no duplication. So, when you compare the previous Act of Parliament, where we had approximately 25 sections, whereas with this Bill, we have approximately 45 sections. In the previous Bill, we had only four substantive sections, whereas with this Bill, we have approximately 24 substantive sections. If this is not progress, what is progress, Madam Speaker? So, we are moving away from a theoretical and purely academic research to pragmatic and mission-oriented research. This is very important. It is a significant shift. This is not merely a procedural replacement of the repealed Mauritius Research and Innovation Council Bill. It is a fundamental rewiring of our national intellect. By establishing the National Research and Innovation Institute as a centralised body, dedicated to advancing scientific discovery, applied research and evidence-based policy making, we are laying down the infrastructure to transition Mauritius into a resilient, competitive and knowledge-powered economy. The Leader of the Opposition, and to certain extent, my learned friend, Mr Baboolall, were referring to over-centralisation. Madam Speaker, this Bill will not preclude other research centres, like the University of Mauritius, the UTM and other private universities, to continue to do research. Both my learned friend, Mr Baboolall and the Leader of the Opposition failed to understand that, as a developing country, we do not have unlimited resources. This is why it is very, very important to make a distinction between applied research as opposed to fundamental research. In the US, UK, France, and to certain extent, even South Africa, they can afford to make fundamental research. As an ex-academic, I am not saying that we should not do at all fundamental research. According to me, we have to filter. Possibly, there are a few geniuses, where we can allow fundamental research. But at the same time, if we have funding, this funding has to be destined to applied research, to mission-oriented research, as pointed out in the Bill. Madam Speaker, at the same time, I think it is important to also understand that we are choosing a model which is pragmatic. Fundamental research seeks knowledge for its own sake, as mentioned by my colleague, my neighbour. It asks why. Applied research, contrastingly with this Bill, defines as original investigation directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective and asks how. While developed nations with multi-billion- dollar budgets can afford to spend heavily on open-ended research, Mauritius cannot do that. As an academic, I can say that some of my colleagues in the field of science, a few among them, have done good research. But, unfortunately, I have to confess also – nothing wrong to confess – that many academics are engaged in a pursuit of promotion, and at times, some universities become like a sort of paper mills. I think the Minister mentioned that we are shelving all these research papers, collecting dust, and there are no practical results. Madam Speaker, with a deficiency in funding, we have to choose – and this is what the Minister and this Bill are doing – to make a choice. If we look at the trajectory of nations like China, and I think the Minister and some other colleagues mentioned about South Korea, India and Singapore in their developmental phases, these countries did not necessarily re-invent the wheel. They mastered what is known as reverse engineering. Madam Speaker, just an anecdote. When I was an academic at the university, and also, at one time, I was based in Geneva, I asked WIPO to come to Mauritius. Madam Speaker, did you know that patents get spent after 20 years? As a developing country, with the new institution which we are setting up, of course, with the collaboration of the University of Mauritius and other private universities, we can do that reverse engineering. This is what we have to do, and this is what is good with this Bill. Universities and the new Research Institute can scur expired patents, understand the mechanics and adapt foreign technologies to the local context. What we were doing before, not only in pure science, but also in social science, here also, I have noticed this. During the early stage of my career when I was at the university, I was also doing research just for the sake of research. But when I joined the Law Reform Commission – I have been a member of the Law Reform Commission for nearly 10 years – with my learned friends, Mr Daniel Focan, and my very good friend, who was an excellent researcher and excellent academic, Mr Rosario Domingue, this is where I learned how to transform that pure academic research into practical research. The Attorney General, who is here, will agree with me on how many important papers this Law Reform Commission has produced. This is what needs to be done. We have to be practical. Madam Speaker, another very important point, which this Bill is trying to do is to bring together the industry, the academia, and not only that. Up to now, we have been adopting what I would call a sort of silos approach, which is not good. This is what this Bill is purposely doing. That is to bring on board not only the academia and the universities, but this time, making the civil servants themselves becoming researchers, where civil servants cannot, capriciously, bring a new Bill. They have to get a sort of evidence-based research before bringing a new legislation. Even Ministers should not bring Bills capriciously. They have to rely on evidence-based research, Madam Speaker. So, this is what the Bill is doing. Over and above that, as I mentioned, the Bill is also trying to rope in our researchers from abroad, members of the diaspora. This is very, very important also. This partnership, what I call shifting from the Triple Helix model to the Multiple Helix model, the Minister has to be congratulated for that. We must not forget that the Minister was an expert in statistics and knows what research is. He has also understood what were the shortcomings of traditional research, fundamental research, when they are being done. While keeping to a certain extent fundamental research, at the same time, we have to put more focus, more emphasis on practical research, and this is important. For many, many years, a lot of good work has been done at the University of Mauritius. But unfortunately, at that point in time, there was no incubation centres, and researchers could not be at the same time entrepreneurs. Whereas, with this Bill, the new Institute will have a possibility, I am sure, to recruit people with expertise, to commercialise. At the end of the day, what is important, we have to commercialise what we are trying to bring during our research; otherwise, it remains abstract. Rightly, I would say wrongly, academics are very often qualified as being in an ivory tower and we don’t need our academics and new researchers to be in an ivory tower. At the same time, Madam Speaker, I think, it is important that we get rid of red tapism. Just to give you another anecdote, it has been seven months; I approached one Italian University and I spoke with my colleague. After more than seven months, Madam Speaker, an MoU has not been signed because unfortunately, some of these works end up in a drawer and no work is being done. And, I am sure this time with the new Institute, the work will be done. But at the same time, I will take a last point, Madam Speaker, and I think, my friend hinted at that. In spite of all the good intention of the Minister, which is a very important Bill, I think, it has sought a lot of inspiration from the best models that we have in Singapore, in South Africa – don’t underestimate South African Universities – in spite of that, if we don’t put in funding, for example, during the last budget, I think, we had earmarked Rs200 million. I am just wondering whether people involved in research have been able to use that Rs200 million. Not only Rs200 million, I think, we have to, if we really want, to make Mauritius a little sort of like South Korea or Singapore, we have to spend more on research. But also, a very important point, Madam Speaker, which I want to drive is we need a collaboration from the private sector and this is where, I would suggest, that we have to impose a levy on the big banks, on the big hotels to put that money for research. Last point, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, the treatment which is meted to academics and researchers is shameful. I will take the initiative, and I hope that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Tertiary Education will do the same, because the salary of a researcher at the University of Mauritius, and even at MRIC for the time being – you will be shocked. The salary of a starting lecturer or a starting researcher at the University of Mauritius, and other universities, is only Rs33,000 or Rs36,000, ending with a sum of Rs60,000. So, if we mean business, and this is where I agree with my colleague, hon. Parapen, we have to chip in money, we have to do the necessary efforts, because this is a sort of exemplary Bill, this is why I strongly commend it, but at the same time, we have to make things happen. For things to happen, we need to work in collaboration: the private sector, the public sector, civil servants, researchers, everybody, this is where we will make Mauritius progress, and this is where there would be a real paradigm shift. On that, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for your attention.

Thank you. Yes, hon. Minister Ramtohul! (7.15 p.m.) The Minister of Information Technology, Communication and Innovation (Dr. A. Ramtohul): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill 2026. I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague minister for coming up with this initiative and this Bill. It was really high time for the ecosystem for innovation to be reviewed in this country. It is good we go back. I think, we went back to 1945 earlier. I would like to take you a few years a little later than 1945. That was 1969, in the US with the establishment of what we called as ARPANET that was the seed of the internet. On 29 October 1969, the first electronic message was exchanged between Stanford Research Institute and the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1973, they managed to connect that small network with the Department of Defence in the UK. That was the first trans-Atlantic electronic connection but that connection was driven by British universities. It is good we remember, we recall and we respect the role that universities have played in the development of all technologies and I will focus on internet technologies. There are moments in life, Madam Speaker, of a nation when legislation is not merely administrative. It is directional. Moments when a Bill does not simply organise institutions, it redefines ambition. Today, this House is called upon to consider one such moment. Because what we are debating is not only the establishment of a new institution, it is the deliberate construction of the intellectual engine that will power Mauritius into its next economic era. For far too long, Madam Speaker, research in this country has existed in fragments and silos. Ideas were produced, reports were written, consultations were held, but too often, again, impact remained elusive. We had knowledge, but not always direction. We had ambition, but not always coordination. Our youth in this country deserve better than what we are able to provide to them at the moment. Not a single groundbreaking research that we have seen emanating from Mauritius that make a global impact. Not a single unicorn that has come out of this country. My colleague, hon. Baboolall, was talking about changing the way we are doing things. He is absolutely right, and this is what we are trying to do. I would refer you to the famous definition of what Einstein called as insanity. We keep on doing the same things over, and over again while expecting the results to be different. In the current model, the results will not be different. This is why it is time for change. This is precisely what my colleague minister is trying to do, and this Bill corrects that issue. It establishes a national centralised body for research and many countries have followed this example. China, which is leading research globally, today, has that very model for research. This is designed to align efforts, to eliminate duplication, to make more judicious use of public funds and to ensure that knowledge translates into policy and economic value. It institutionalises evidence-based policy making, ensuring that decisions are grounded not in guesswork, but in data, analysis and foresight. I am sad that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not here. I would have loved for him to listen to me here. This is not a cosmetic reform.

Maybe he is listening.

Probably, yes. I hope he is. This is not a cosmetic reform. This is structural. We heard about the political lens which the Leader of the Opposition used to look at this Bill. He mentioned the powers of the Minister with regards to directions of the research and I would refer here to the MDPA Bill of 2023. In that Bill, there was this section with regards to employment of officers in the MDPA back then. Those are the changes that were made by the MSM government, of which the current Leader of the Opposition was an active member. And that read section 16, Powers of the Minister, in the MDPA Bill and Act – “ The Minister may give such written directions of general nature to the Agency’’. So, MDPA is Mauritius Digital Promotion Agency. I will repeat – “ The Minister may give such written directions of a general nature to the Agency, not inconsistent with the Act, as he considers necessary in public interest and the Agency shall comply with these directions.” Madam Speaker, and the very same person, today, is challenging the powers that are being given to the Minister with regards to the operation and the direction of this Institute that is being established. In the current Bill, with regard to the employment of staff in this new institution, the Minister has no power. The power is delegated to the Board and this is proper governance. The Board will actually decide with regard to the employment of people. And he might also have missed another element with regard to the role that universities would be playing. He presented a hypothetical situation whereby people would actually overlook universities, they ignore universities to go and do the research themselves but section 4(1) subsection (g) actually makes provision for universities to be fully involved in the research work that will be carried out by this new institution. Madam Speaker, allow me to place this Bill in its true context now because this legislation is not an isolated initiative; it is a cornerstone of a much larger transformation. Our projected transition from a digital state to an intelligent state and under Clause 4, the institute is mandated not only to promote innovation, but to conduct mission-oriented research, addressing digital transformation and national challenges. If all the people working in government and all our institutions start operating in a mission mode, Madam Speaker, the results will be palpable. It will not just be continuous but measured and continual improvement that we will achieve. And in fact, this is where my Ministry steps in, not as a spectator, but as a catalyst of the change for the research and innovation that is being aimed at by this institution, and this is guided by our national AI strategy and the FAIR guidelines. Fair standing for Fairness, Accountability, Inclusiveness and Responsibility that was launched on April 9 of this year. Through this AI strategy, we will ensure that AI is not just imported blindly, but augmented locally and also developed through applied research programs. Government data is actually not underutilised, but it becomes the foundation of AI models that are actually built in Mauritius, obviously within the data protection norms. Public services are not digitised in isolation, but augmented with AI and integrated end to end. The AI unit established within my Ministry is very purposeful with regard to the research that will be carried out in the institution. Those areas will touch upon healthcare challenges. Once the e-health system constructs the electronic medical records, based on research, it will be able to implement the bracelets for patients who demand immediate care. And that takes research for food security, climate resilience, digital transformation and social inequality. AI trained models on Mauritian data developed by Mauritian researchers are what we are aiming at, and this will be our sovereignty in the age of AI. This Bill goes even further. Under Clause 12, the institute will bridge the gap between academia and industry and this aligns directly with what we are aiming at implementing. The innovation lab under the AI unit and the National AI marketplace that we have established under the Ministry. We will work with the institute to complete the ecosystem for research and innovation in AI. This institute actually aims at coordinating with universities, reducing duplication and accelerating collaboration. Therefore, this speaks to our AI strategy which is built on the four Ps: Public, People, Private, Partnership because innovation does not happen in silos; it takes ecosystems. Behind every clause of this Bill, there is a human story. Under Clause 6, this institute is mandated to identify and develop new economic sectors, including the digital economy and advanced technologies. Hon. Narsinghen mentioned that a lot of research work is done in Mauritius. However, a lot of those research works remain in drawers. And I would strongly call for a central repository for all those research work to be published so that people can actually leverage those research ideas and try the commercial viability of same. This is where Mauritius has a historic opportunity as well. The Bill is about the young Mauritian who does not want to leave the country, but to build here. It is about the startup founder who has ideas, but he needs to rely on an ecosystem. It is about the student who dreams not just of using technology, but of creating it. It is about the farmer who can benefit from predictive analysis, the patient who can benefit from the AI assisted diagnostics, the citizen who deserves smarter, faster, and more responsive public services. Hon. Ministers, it is also about the fisherman who takes risks and navigates to actually bring back seafood that he is going to put on the market. He should be able to navigate safely, but surely to pre-identified fishing grounds. These are the kinds of research that needs to take place and this institution guarantees this. Through AI, through data, through innovation, we can position Mauritius as a regional leader for AI services. We can export digital solutions, not just consume them. We can create high value jobs for our youth and our AI strategy points into that direction. We must also recognise where we are coming from. There was a time when digital transformation was spoken about, but not fully executed. When innovation was announced, but not always delivered. When structures existed, but ecosystems did not. Let me put it this way, because I believe in being fair, but also in being honest. The previous government sometimes treated innovation as an event. We are treating it as a system. They focused on visibility; we focus on viability. They focused on short-term announcements, but we focus on long-term architecture and economic reconstruction which is sustainable. And history, Madam Speaker, does not judge intentions. It judges outcomes. We are not planting a seed today and expecting a tree by next week. Research, innovation, and the building of knowledge-economy require time, consistency, and patience. I have gone through that cycle and I know what it takes but what we are doing right here, right now is far more important. We are laying solid foundations. Foundations upon which future industries will emerge, new jobs will be created, and a new generation of Mauritians will thrive. Those who only look for immediate results may miss the significance of this moment but those who understand nation building will recognise this for what it is – an investment in future stability, competitiveness, sovereignty of Mauritius. Madam Speaker, this Bill ensures that Mauritius no longer operates in fragments. The world is entering an era where AI is programmable, data is strategic, and innovation determines competitiveness and Mauritius has made its choice. We will create, we will innovate, we will lead, but responsibly, intelligently and inclusively. This is not just a Bill for today. It is a framework for the next generation; a generation that will not ask what Mauritius adopted, but what Mauritius created. Let us give them that foundation and move from ambition to impact. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Thank you. Perfect timing for us to break for dinner. At 7.30 p.m., the Sitting was suspended. On resuming at 8.23 p.m. with Madam Speaker in the Chair.

Please be seated! Hon. Minister of Financial Services! (8.23 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, Mauritius has beaten all predictions of doom at the time of independence. Our economic and social progress is recognised internationally. But as our colleague Minister said earlier, the success of our nation was not built on oil, gas, minerals, or vast land resources. Our greatest and most enduring natural resource has been our people. Yes, our people, their intelligence, their resilience, and talent. Five decades ago, in 1976, we got free secondary education, which changed the lives of countless citizens up and down the country, especially for girls from villages. Free education laid the foundation that led to economic and social mobility of its people. Today, we are at the dawn of yet another frontier. In a Small Island State like Mauritius, research and innovation are not mere wish list. They are economic necessities. They are the pathway through which we create high-value jobs, improve productivity, strengthen competitiveness, and most importantly, expand social mobility so that every young Mauritian, regardless of background, can rise through knowledge, creativity and opportunity. I, therefore, commend my colleague, the hon. Minister of Tertiary Education, Science and Research, for bringing forward the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill. Through this National Research and Innovation Institute Bill, we are making a strategic choice. A choice to rise to the next level of our country's destiny. A choice to build on the foundation of five decades of investments in education, learning, and become a nation that innovates, creates, and exports to the world. As my Ministry develops Vision 2050 and the National Development Plan 2035, the establishment of the NRII could not be more timely. Data-driven research, innovation, and policy-making is at the heart of planning. I would even argue that an institution like the NRII has been long overdue. Singapore's National Research Foundation links economic competitiveness with innovation and the creation of an enabling ecosystem. The push for greater competitiveness is something we have been missing for some time. This could well explain the slowdown in growth that we have witnessed in recent years. The challenges of our growth model are well documented. Post-independence, our economic development was boosted by preferential market access and guaranteed prices. This allowed our sugar and textile sectors to develop. In the process, benefiting from a demographic dividend by leveraging on youthful population. Decades later, the factors that drove our economic growth are mostly gone. Our traditional economic pillars are facing existential challenges, and we face a declining workforce and population. Under these circumstances, Madam Speaker, we need to redefine our growth path. Our future growth will no longer be based on the quantity of our labour, but more importantly, on its quality. Growth will be driven by how much we invest in our talent through better education, vocational training, reskilling, and upskilling. How we leverage technology to be more productive and regain competitiveness. Growth will be driven by R&D, how we develop cutting-edge technologies to adapt to the defining challenges and harness the opportunities technology and AI are creating. We are facing these policy choices as we seek to boost our growth and accelerate our economic development. Traditional sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing need to move up the value chain if they are to survive. Sugar production has declined from a peak of around 700,000 tonnes to reach around 225,000 tonnes. Labour shortages, rising costs, climate risk are forcing planters to abandon their land, contributing to the worsening of our food security. Manufacturing is also facing a similar fate. Nearly 60 years after independence, Madam Speaker, our nation stands at crossroads. We stay still; we decay. We move forward with ambition; we unleash a new era of economic development and social mobility for the people of our country. Unleashing this new growth model requires more research and innovation. We are currently under-investing in R&D at 0.23% of GDP. In contrast, Singapore spends closer to 1.85% of GDP. During the launch of the national consultations for Vision 2050, the hon. Prime Minister set up the challenge of becoming an advanced economy by 2050. His new year's message highlighted that 2026 is the year of the economy. To achieve these ambitions, we need to move from business as usual. The NRII is the right vehicle to advance this agenda. It has been entrusted with 11 objectives. Let me focus on four of direct relevance to economic planning and delivering a growth path to take us in the future – (i) Evidence-based policymaking; (ii) coordination and interdisciplinary collaboration; (iii) high-impact applied research for public and private sectors, (iv) partnerships and talent. First, I cannot, but fully endorse the need for strengthening evidence-based policymaking. We need to better leverage data and analysis in informing policy decisions to maximize their impact and effectiveness. In a context where budget constraints are binding, we need to ensure we are informing our policies on data. Where will we get the biggest impact for every rupee we spend? As my Ministry has been conducting the consultations for Vision 2050, common questions are: why have we been facing water shortages for decades? Why are we so close to an energy crisis? Why labour shortages? Why did we not see all this coming? Evidence-based policy decisions and planning would have averted this crisis situation and the fire-fighting that we are having to manage on a daily basis. Second, Madam Speaker, I also support the case for strengthening coordination and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration as we aim to develop new sectors. As I noted earlier, there are sectors that we have been trying to develop for the best part of a decade. Results have been encouraging. For instance, the blue economy, as it stands, contributes to close to 10% to our GDP but a vast potential remains untapped. Part of the reason has to do with the fact that policies are too often designed in silos as my hon. colleague said earlier. The future economy is not siloed, it is integrated. The Blue Economy, for instance, is not just a matter of fishing and of ports, it is also about the broader food chain. We need different expertise, we need different skills, we need the cross-fertilisation of ideas. It will not be developed just on the oceans. It will be developed in our port, at our universities and our laboratories, and in new export markets. Same for the development of life sciences and pharma. We need better collaboration between the academia, researchers, and the industry. Third, I fully support the case for high-impact applied research for public and private sector. In fact, last year, my Ministry commissioned a study from the University of Mauritius, an economic impact assessment study of the financial services sector. The findings were utterly revealing and is driving policy and future direction of the sector. Some say the sector makes too much profit. The report revealed that sector is also the largest corporate and PAYE tax contributor to the treasury. Now, whatever angle you look at, one cannot but agree that more collaboration is needed between academia, industry, and government. Fourth, and this will be my final point, Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the case for stronger partnerships and attracting talent. Foreign partners can bring technologies that we do not readily have access to. They can also bring financing. At the same time, we need to ensure we are training the graduates that the new industries require. In many countries, universities provide the intellectual and entrepreneurial backbone to business hubs. They support the creation of startups, technology, commercialisation, and innovation. This was the case for Silicon Valley and Stanford University. Similarly, the University of Cambridge acts as the anchor institution for a large biotech and tech cluster around the Cambridge area in the UK, with around 60 global firms leveraging the University's talent pool. So, as we speak of new industries, we have to clearly acknowledge that we will require talent at scale. Talent that we do not readily have. Where do we source these talents from? How do we incentivise them to choose Mauritius? These are important questions for us to think as we embark on developing new industries. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, let me say, we have the seeds for what it takes to be an innovation-driven economy. Being small comes with some constraints, but it also means we can move fast. We have an opportunity to chart a new path with the NRII. We need to seize that opportunity. Once again, I commend this Bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you very much, hon. Minister. Yes, hon. Minister Guness. (8.36 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Tertiary Education, Science and Research, for introducing this Bill, today, in the House. The presentation of this Bill coincides with the Africa Forward Summit co-hosted by Kenya and France in Nairobi, where our hon. Prime Minister is attending actually, and where one of the key themes is innovation and growth. Therefore, this Bill comes at an opportune moment and marks an important milestone in the field of innovation and research, which are vital for our society. As we are all aware, our country stands at a critical crossroad. We are facing rising economic vulnerability, increasing climate risks, considerable food insecurity, and rapid technological disruption. Our economy remains highly vulnerable to external shocks, such as the tension and instability arising from the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. At present, we have to import about 70% of our food, while climate change continues to threaten our coastlines and the future sustainability of our tourism industry. At the same time, the world is undergoing rapid technological transformation. Artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and advanced manufacturing techniques are redefining global competitiveness. In this global race, Madam Speaker, countries that invest in research and innovation take the lead, those that do not are left behind. Mauritius currently invests less than 0.5% of GDP in research and development, far below the 2-3% benchmark observed in innovation-driven economies. Therefore, it is imperative for us to take immediate remedial action to boost up research and development, and I totally concur with my colleague, the hon. Junior Minister, Parapen, who also emphasised on this, that we need to invest more on research and development. Jointly, with the private sector and the government, we have to find means to invest in research and development, or else we will be left behind countries which are investing in innovation and development. Madam Speaker, research is not a luxury. It is a necessity for survival, for building resilience and for economic transformation. It is, therefore, timely that this Bill is introduced in order to establish a National Research and Innovation Institute to spearhead research, strengthen our national ecosystem, promote the adoption of innovative practices and support the economic development of our country. The Bill presents several commendable and forward-looking elements. It appropriately positions research and innovation as key drivers of economic transformation, particularly in emerging sectors that are critical for the diversification and resilience of our country. Streamlining research efforts, currently dispersed across multiple ministries and agencies, is a strategic necessity to improve efficiency, maximise impact and ensure better alignment with national goals. By coordinating these efforts, institutions can pool expertise, share data and avoid the redundant studies or siloed findings that often occur in fragmented systems. This integrated approach not only reduces costs and accelerates the production of high-quality actionable insights, but also fosters the interdisciplinary collaboration needed to address complex challenges like climate change and economic resilience. Ultimately, a unified framework enhances accountability and accessibility, ensuring that limited resources contribute meaningfully to national progress and evidence-based policy making. Madam Speaker, this Bill marks a significant departure from traditional policy making by empowering public officers to actively conduct, commission and utilise research to ensure decisions are grounded in evidence and strategic foresight. By institutionalising research as a core function and providing continuous professional development in data analysis and innovation management, the law bridges the gap between research and implementation. This initiative recognises that effective governance in a rapidly changing world must be supported by robust, timely and relevant research embedded within the Public Service. Ultimately, this reform will strengthen institutional capacity and foster a culture of critical thinking, positioning public officers to design forward-looking solutions that enhance service delivery, and national development. Madam Speaker, I have no doubt the introduction of this new law marks a decisive step in shaping a resilient, inclusive and modern Mauritius. As a Small Island Developing State, Mauritius faces unique vulnerabilities that require a comprehensive and forward-looking legislative response. This Bill addresses through research, a wide range of critical issues, including climate resilience, food security, public health, digital transformation, ocean economy development and energy sustainability. Climate resilience is essential to safeguard our communities, our infrastructure and our economy from the increasing threats of climate change, including rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Food security remains a national priority. It will ensure that our population has reliable access to safe and nutritious food while reducing dependency on imports. A strengthening public health system is equally vital to enhance preparedness and protect our citizens against emerging health risks. This Bill, Madam Speaker, also embraces digital transformation as a key driver of innovation, efficiency and economic diversification. In parallel, it promotes the sustainable development of the ocean economy, recognising the vast potential of marine resources. Energy sustainability is being addressed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and transition towards cleaner renewable sources. Furthermore, the Bill tackles pressing social challenges such as gentrification and social inequality, ensuring that development remains inclusive and equitable. It also acknowledges the importance of work-life balance in improving productivity and overall well-being. This holistic and integrated approach contained in this Bill reflects a bold vision for Mauritius, one that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social progress for the present and the future generations. Madam Speaker, strengthening cooperation between Government institutions, research centres and universities represent a valuable opportunity for Mauritius. Such partnership promotes the exchange of knowledge and ensures that academic research is aligned with national priorities and public policy objectives. This enables more informed decision-making while allowing researchers to address practical national challenges. These collaborations also encourage innovation by bringing together expertise, resources and institutional capacities. With effective Government support, research and technological advancements can be translated into practical solutions that contribute to economic development, public health, environmental sustainability and digital transformation. At the same time, stronger institutional ties will support human capital development by providing students and professionals with greater exposure to interdisciplinary learning and practical experience, better preparing them for the evolving demands of the labour market. For a small developing nation like Mauritius, such coordination will optimise limited resources, strengthen national resilience and support the development of a sustainable knowledge-driven economy that benefits all citizens. I note with great satisfaction, Madam Speaker, that this Bill makes provision for such types of partnership. Another landmark feature contained in this Bill is that it provides for the identification and growth of new economic sector and pillars to enhance our competitiveness and diversify our economy. Identifying new economic sectors and pillars for growth is highly essential to ensure long-term resilience and the sustainable development of our economy. In a rapidly changing global environment, marked by technological disruption, reliance on a narrow range of traditional sectors exposes economies to significant risk. Diversification is therefore a strategic necessity rather than an option. I have no doubt the development of new economic pillars will create fresh avenues for investment, innovation and employment creation. These sectors will not only generate higher productivity, but will also encourage knowledge and skills development, strengthening the overall capacity of our workforce. Moreover, identifying emerging sectors will enable Government to design forward- looking policies that attract foreign direct investment and stimulate local entrepreneurship. It will also foster greater resilience by reducing dependency on vulnerable industries and external shocks. Countries that proactively invest in diversification are better positioned to withstand global economic downturns and adapt to technological advancement. Long-term economic diversification also supports inclusive growth by opening opportunities for small, medium enterprises and promoting regional development. Ultimately, the continuous identification and nurturing of new economic pillars is key to building a dynamic, competitive economy capable of sustaining success and prosperity to generations to come. Madam Speaker, emphasis on mobilising diverse funding sources is a positive step towards expanding the research and development and innovation financing base. Importantly, the Bill seeks to better connect research with policy, which can enhance evidence-based decision making. Equally important will be the establishment of a strong governance, accountability and inter-institutional collaboration mechanism to ensure that research outcomes are effectively translated into practical policy actions and measurable national benefits. Madam Speaker, the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill 2026 is a transformative piece of legislation that will fundamentally reshape the future of Mauritius. This Bill is not merely about the setting up of a new institution. It is about preparing our country for the future. It is about building a resilient, innovation-driven and knowledge-based economy capable of competing in a rapidly changing global environment. Madam Speaker, the economic implications of this Bill are profound and far-reaching. By strengthening our national research and innovation ecosystem, Mauritius will be able to stimulate sustainable economic growth through the emergence of high value-added sectors, attract both local and foreign investment and create quality employment opportunities for our people, particularly for our youth. Madam Speaker, with regard to the construction sector which falls under the purview of my Ministry and which has for long been an important pillar of our economy, must now evolve to meet the demands of the future. We are no longer building solely for today. We are building for the next 30 to 50 years. This requires transition from traditional labour-intensive approaches towards a modern, innovative-led and technology driven construction model. The future of our construction sector lies in innovation across the entire value chain. In design, we must embrace digital modelling, simulation technologies and building information modelling to optimise structures, reduce waste, improve planning efficiency and lower long-term costs. In construction methods, we must encourage modular and prefabricated system, automation, robotics and advanced technologies that reduce construction time improve quality control, strengthen safety standards and increase productivity. In project management, we must increasingly rely on real-time digital monitoring system, predictive maintenance technologies, data-driven planning, and intelligent infrastructure management systems, to ensure that infrastructure is not only efficiently built, but also efficiently managed through its entire life cycle. Madam Speaker, traditionally infrastructure development relied heavily on conventional methods and imported expertise. Today, however, we are entering a new era. One where infrastructure must become smarter, greener, more resilient, more sustainable, and more technologically advanced. First, it will enable targeted research on construction material, techniques and technologies suited to Mauritius' specific conditions such as cyclonic risks, coastal erosion and climate change impacts. This will lead to the development of more resilient and sustainable infrastructure, improving the durability and safety of buildings and public works. Second, the Bill promotes stronger coordination between government, academia and industry. This will allow universities and research institutions to work more closely with contractors, engineers and planners, ensuring that innovations are rapidly translated into practical construction solution. For example, advances in green building technologies, energy efficient designs and low carbon materials can be more easily adopted across the sector. Third, by encouraging mission-oriented research, the proposed institute will support cost effective construction methods and better project planning. This is particularly important for Mauritius, where infrastructure investment must be efficient due to limited resources and high import dependence for materials. Fourth, the Bill will enable the strengthening of skills development and capacity building within the construction workforce. Research outputs will enhance training programmes for engineers, architects and technicians, ensuring that this sector keeps pace with global standards and emerging technologies such as digital construction methods and smart infrastructure system. Finally, the focus on innovation will enhance the sector's competitiveness, enabling Mauritian firms to adopt advanced construction practices and to expand regionally. Madam Speaker, in practical terms, this means that our roads, bridges, drainage system, public buildings and transport network will be better designed, more durable, more cost efficient, and more aligned with the long-term development needs of our country. I am just finishing, Madam Speaker.

Yes!

I am just finishing.

To sir?

Yes. Madam Speaker, ultimately, the Bill is not solely about research, it is about the future direction of our economy. It is about modernising our institutions. It is about strengthening national resilience, and it is about equipping Mauritius with the tools necessary to confront the challenges of the 21st century with confidence and ambition. It challenges us to rethink how we should innovate, how we should build, how we should modernise, and how we should prepare our nation for the future generation. With vision, innovation and collective national commitment, we can transform Mauritius into smarter, greener, more resilient and globally competitive nation. Overall, the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill will act as a catalyst for a smarter, safer and more sustainable construction industry, aligning infrastructure development with long-term national resilience and economic growth. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like, once again, to congratulate the Minister. Well done on bringing this important Bill to the House as an important milestone for the sustainable development of our country. I, therefore, reiterate my full support to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister! It is very difficult for me sometimes. I do not want to stop you, but sometimes, it is difficult. Please, Dr. Boolell. (8.57 p.m.) The Minister of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries (Dr. A. Boolell): Thank you.

I am sure you will try and keep the time!

I will try my level best! It is not always easy. Madam Speaker, I am rather appalled that there is no one on the Opposition bench…

Yes, yes!

…to listen to what we have to say. It is such an important Bill. Since I am the last one to intervene before my good friend makes his concluding remarks, I will be like Speedy Gonzales, referring copiously to my notes and rushing through it. Let me congratulate the hon. Minister for moving, what I will call, a cutting-edge Bill. The National Research and Innovation Institution Bill is a bill that will bring fundamental changes. He has conveyed a message and come up with the solution. Time, Madam Speaker, is of an essence, and no one owes us a living. There was a time when we were an overcrowded barracoon, of course, in the 60s and 70s, and the ambition of many, out of necessity, was to enrol in a teaching hospital in the UK to be a nursing officer. Then, use the savings from working as a nursing officer to go to university to be professional in their respective fields. They have contributed or had contributed enormously to the socio-economic development of our country. As I say, they have done well in their professional careers. Today, we have an ageing workforce and demographic changes is a daunting challenge to sustain our standard of living. Japan, many European countries, in contrast to Africa and India, have an inherent demographic problem. It is, Madam Speaker, a conveyor belt with a weak link. But how to address the pernicious problems? One of the several solutions, notwithstanding circular migration or selective migration, is investment in research, development and innovation. As I have stated earlier, no one owes us a living. The days of preference are over. Market access with reciprocity without guaranteed price is our way of life. We have to reinvent ourselves and we cannot relax and enjoy on sheer comfortability. As a Small Island Developing State, which has the legitimate ambition to be a knowledge-based Big Ocean State, applied research, development, innovation and creativity should be our new paradigm. When I look at the Bill and refer to the clauses, one of the outstanding clauses is Clause 4 (1) (d) and (j). I am not going to highlight what they are, but they are there, and they look at us, as we say, smartingly. But then, words are there; actions matter most. The Applied Research and Commissioned Studies Division of Section 11 shall be responsible to acquire research tools, including AI-enabled ones, and e-library. This is amazing! This is knowledge. This is the powerhouse. If we want to stay one step ahead or to be at par, we have no choice than to widen our circle of opportunities and increase our vista of knowledge. I say it because there are miles to go, and I say it to our good friend, because this is the harsh reality. Our ranking and global innovative index has to improve. We all have to do it. The mindset has to be new. We have to shift the paradigm. Otherwise, we will be a lightweight. Not only should we shift the paradigm, but we have to re-engineer the process. Madam Speaker, the National Research and Innovation Institute will be the national oversight to advance scientific discovery, research, innovation and evidence base. We have, as I have said, to turn Mauritius into a resilient, competitive and knowledge-based economy. It is not a sound bite, but has to be evidence-based with scientific data and re-engineering process; it is the way of life in Estonia, Netherlands and South Korea. Let me state, there will be no encroachment and the Minister said it. I am sure it didn't fly like a cuckoo's nest over one's head, but he said it, there will be no encroachment on any research organisation. Collaboration and synergistic partnership are the way to level up research, development and innovation. The bedrock of our national development. It is pervasive and will permeate to bring positive changes at the Sugar Research Institute, the Mauritius Oceanographic Institute and Albion Fisheries Research Centre. These research organisations are delivering and the findings in the recent reports on blue economy and agriculture are the outcome of applied research. MSI is a wealth of research of information. I would like to pay tribute to late Mr Guého, who was instrumental to do thorough research work in sugar cane industry but there is no protection of intellectual property rights of the research carried out. It is a wealth lying idle and a relevant data of public research and development has to be established. Section 24 clearly defines the role and function of the Coordinating Council. It is a facilitator and an enabler of existing organisation in research, development and innovation. Section 23 provides effective coordination across the government ecosystem. We are also looking at emerging sectors. But we have to be more innovative, more creative, to have startup and to have the startup of new sectors. There is no brain drain and I call it brain gain, because when you go overseas, when you work in reputed institutions, research has been carried out and you have contributed to make things better. These are experience acquired overseas in the best centre and they can easily be transferred today with constant breakthrough in research and technology. Our skilled Mauritian workforce, they would be willing to come. India is doing it, a Maveric in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. EU hired the services of a prominent Mauritian professional in the field of medical science to strengthen our Institute of Biotechnology and I deliberately won't drop his name. So, it shows what we Mauritians can do and when we do it, we do it well because we are inspiring. We are committed and when we deliver, we deliver with the strength and skills acquired in our local institutions right from the early days. That's why we have to put a premium on education, the best investment in life. Earlier we were talking of an idea, but an idea is worth every penny if it is matured through research, development and innovation and has the potential as a startup to be commercially viable. My friends were right to say, it does not happen overnight. I think, it was hon. Narsinghen who said it. You invest, you allow the idea to mature through research and development and you need to give it a commercial dimension. You have not only commercial but it has to be viable. It has to be sustained and value has to be added to it. But then we have to look at the level of our preparedness because the only thing that remain constant in life is change. And we have to change for the better and constantly improve the well-being of our people, our best resource. Against, Madam Speaker, a background of financial uncertainty, an oil crisis, as I have stated earlier, we need to have a culture focused aggressively on innovation, research and development. From renewable energy to alternative urea fertilizer, applied research and development and innovation and AI have to be our way of life. AI is a set of tools that make us more efficient, but sometimes at the cost of redundancy. Workers are released to be redeployed in other sectors, and we have to live with the harsh realities, but we constantly need to give them the skills and reskill them. Research in relation to social impact of redundancy as I have stated has to be conducted. The debate can be endless as to whom should be on the Council. What the Minister has done, I will call it an early harvest of the low hanging fruits. But if amendments have to be brought to bring in representatives from the Higher Education Commission or University of Mauritius or University of Technology or the private sector, it will be given due consideration. After all, Madam Speaker, the law is an ass. The provisions of the Bill pave the way to walk the talk. Let me reinforce what the Minister of Tertiary Education has stated. There would be no overplay, no overlapping and no duplication. This is a strong signal being sent to all research institutions. These are signals that have been conveyed and we need to collaborate and we need to cluster our strength and look ahead and define what is the object of what we have to achieve. As Minister of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries, I am setting up an integrated blue green circular food infrastructure platform aligned with Mauritius strategic priorities in food security, blue economy, execution and climate resilience. But research and development, and innovation remain the cornerstone. Smart with precision and have impressed upon Civil Aviation Department to allow agricultural sector to use a bigger drone for use of precision agriculture, a valuable tool in research, development and innovation. Our EEZ, Madam Speaker, is the biggest in Africa and 20th in the world. The Mauritius Oceanographic Institute, the Albion Fisheries Research Centre have data which is sought after by the Ocean Economy AI Lab launched by Mr George Chung Tick Kan. A collaboration, public private partnership should not be ruled out. As SIDS, we are world in miniature, with different soil types and micro climate, indeed an attractive destination for research and development, which reminds me of people, the Americans who went to Madagascar, collected a flower called periwinkle, which was turned into pharmaceutical produce and used in to treat cancers, especially Hodgkin disease. But what was given to the Madagascans? Nothing. This is why it is important that as a Small Island Developing State, which nurture the ambition to be a big ocean state, we collaborate, we work together with countries in the region and we convey strong signals to the appropriate forum to impress upon them that intellectual property rights and patency as of rights are our rights also, Madam Speaker.

To big pharma.

Sorry?

To big pharma.

That's right. You're always right when you say the good things. Concern has been expressed in some quarters over potential fundamental conflict and the Minister has dispelled the myth and highlighted the importance of applied research. Mobilising resources to have a coordinated trust – Albion Fisheries Research Centre, the Oceanic Institute, the University of Mauritius, NGO with funding from UN bodies need to have a coordinated trust. We cannot, Madam Speaker, be like headless chicken running all over the place, and I don't want to sound like a cobbler who judge the research bodies by the shoes they wear. The perception of judge, jury and executioner should be dispelled and that has been dispelled without the Minister saying much, but the signals were sent. Can there be free, distinct, and opposing rules under one roof? A legitimate question. A single institute simply can fund, work together with relevant institution to implement research simultaneously, but the coordinated thrust remains the backbone. There should be no inherent conflict of interest. Let me examine the Bill from three perspective. As a funder, there will be equitable sharing without any compromise on funding from specific relevant Ministry but the project-based budgeting of each project should be the cornerstone. As an implementer, no duplication silo approach, but synergistic coordination to allow the specific body to boost its project. As a training institute, various clauses of the Bill allure to the role of the National Research Innovation Institute in training of public officers in research and there will be streamlining of resource for better outcome. The roles are clearly defined, be it the Higher Education Commission or the Polytechnic as implementers of research and training student, the Civil Service College already mandated to train their public officers. The Ministry which coordinates agricultural and ocean research through various institutions is fully on board. Madam Speaker, international best practices dictate clear separation from those who set the strategy, the coordinators, those who provide money, the funders and those who do the work. And as a responsible government, the Minister has said it, none of us will depart from best practices. The Ministry of Agro-Industry, Food Security, Blue Economy and Fisheries oversees the foremost vital research of our nation which I have highlighted. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, other key ministries will be fully on board. We have heard the speech delivered by the Minister responsible for ICT and all other ministers who have intervened, it is relevant also that we are faithful to documents which are published by specific ministry. The Minister, hon. Gunness, spoke lengthily on the merits of his Ministry and despite financial resources are not allocated to him, sometimes we are unduly penalised in our Constituency but he's doing his level best and has a hands up approach. Let me conclude, Madam Speaker. Various international reports highlight that the major problem of Mauritius is the lack of business-driven research and development. Traditional sectors are stagnating because the private sector is not investing enough in research and development. The problem with our private sector is that like Oliver Twist, they ask for more and more but when it comes to make their contribution and to act in unison with policy defined by government, sometimes they choose to stay far away. This goes against the policies defined by government to take everybody on board. They cannot simply ask for more and do less, Madam Speaker. We all have to live up to our responsibility. The Minister of Tertiary Education, as a good professor, will prepare the scientific roadmap with clear goals and broad objectives to avoid administrative pitfalls. Let me conclude by saying, Singapore and Finland came with the relevant policy to address national research and innovation. Notwithstanding our own specificity, there are lessons to be learned and drawn. Both have lean structures with clear vision on the sectors that they wish to develop, solid interministerial coordination, public and private partnership platform and high degree of accountability. Madam Speaker, the Minister has opted for constructive dialogue. He has presented a Bill which is as good as gold. It's up to us now to live up to expectation, to be on the march and to deliver forcefully and in a meaningful manner. Thank you very much.

Hon. Minister of Tertiary Education, Science and Research, your concluding speech, please. (9.18 p.m.)

Madam Speaker, let me start by thanking everyone for their intervention. Let me particularly thank the acting Prime Minister, yourself, and the Chief Whip for getting my energy back, and let me thank everybody for their intervention.

C'est très féministe. Allez-y.

Everybody has contributed and has talked about various sectors, whether it is plant, financial planning, ICT, education; everybody has shown how research can play a pivotal role in ensuring that we achieve the goal. The Leader of the Opposition, saying it in the research language that my colleague Dr. Gungapersad said, he is totally confused. He has the right ontological stance by saying – “yes, we are for evidence-based research, we would like more policies to be crafted based on evidence and research” but his epistemological stance was completely wrong. How can he have an epistemological stance that doesn't match his ontological stance? So, he's talking about centralisation. Let me give you the picture of how things are today. He took the example of University of Mauritius. I have a lot of respect for the academics there; they are brilliant researchers. But what's happening now? You have researchers in one department not talking to another department. You have researchers within one university. That's why as soon as this government came, we started the national research, bringing them together. When we have a national problem, I take Mare Chicose. Where are our researchers? Did you hear our researchers? When we have the problem of Chikungunya, communicable diseases; where are they? Who is advising on what are the different methods available? When the country is facing issues of drain after the cyclone or flash flood, where are they? They are very good. I repeat it, we have very good researchers doing very well, but they are happy to do research, publish in high impact factor journal and get promoted. I am making an appeal to them. I have been making an appeal since I became a Minister. Please do not stop at impact factor journal research. We need that research to be applied. We need you to find solutions to our national problem. What is happening now? If you want me to summarise this Bill in one word, it is coherence. It is not centralisation. It's like the brain. The brain can synchronise, but it will not do the work of the heart. It will not do the work of the lung. It ensures that everybody's working in harmony and ensures that we remain alive. So, there will be no duplication. There will be no encroachment, as hon. Dr. Boolell said, but there needs to be synchronisation. We cannot continue like that. Colleagues have said about the low investment in research and development. So, with that low investment in R&D, we cannot afford duplication. That is why Section 23 brings everybody; all ministries conducting research together, let them sit down. Hon. François asked who sets the National Research Institute priorities? It is that committee. The national research priorities will change. For example, we have an outbreak of communicable diseases. What do we do? We got to have the team. The Bill makes it clear that when we do not have local expertise, we have got to have people from abroad and we have got to have expert and researchers coming from abroad working together. So, this Bill is about coherence convergence. The examples taken by the hon. Leader of the Opposition; well, they were hypothetical examples, but let me reassure everybody. I have said it to the academics and the researchers; your research needs to be valued. Your research needs to be applied. Your research needs to solve the national challenges we are facing. This is what we want. We do not want that research to remain in that research journal or to remain at the university. So, their research will be valued. He does not have to worry about. Second, he talked about governance. Section 15 (4) of the Bill makes it clear– “No person shall be qualified as a board member where he is – (a) a member of the National Assembly; (b) a member of a local authority; or (c) otherwise actively engaged in any political activity.” It goes beyond and describes the board members referred to here will comprise – (a) be persons who have proven competence in research, science, finance, technology transfer, higher education, entrepreneurship, policy development, management of research or public administration; The first thing that NRII will be doing is looking at a diabetes research centre. and who will leading that? Professor Froguel from Imperial College. He is the one who has the highest publication in this field. He is someone who is respected in this field. My colleagues can read about him. There was an article yesterday in Le Défi and he was here for the research week. Why? We want to find possible solutions to this problem. He has a data bank of markers that will help to do the DNA sequencing, identify those markers and help people have a better life. So, we want things to change. Section 23, when it talks about the council, brings everybody together. If you are in the field of agriculture, there is a problem there, then, we will all collaborate. Because what is happening now? Research and agriculture are done only by the person expert in agriculture. But we need economists there. We would need the person from the sociology background because it has impact on the lives of people. So, we need multi-disciplinary research. This is what this Bill is bringing. Regarding Rodrigues, let me reassure hon. François that MRIC already has a unit in Rodrigues that will continue to function. So, he does not have to worry at all. Concerning the definition of innovation, we were hesitant to have it there because why confine innovation in a definition? When you look at the definition of innovation in the MRIC Act, it talks about augmentation, increase. That is not innovation! Innovation is about letting people come up with ideas! This is what the Bill is about: having a bank of ideas.

Innovation is innovating!

Voilà! Regarding the finance issue, it is very clearly specified that there will be a general fund. I will not only produce financial report, as hon. François, again, requested. It is going to produce those reports that will solve the issues. You talked about the findings to be made available, hon. Baboolall talked about financial reports, so, those reports are mandatory. That is why apart from the council, we are also having a group of people to look at the rigour of the research. We are not going to do research for the sake of research. The Scientific Advisory Council will ensure that there is rigour, quality and that we are able to achieve the goals. So, Madam Speaker, I would like, again, to thank everybody for supporting this Bill. Let me reassure them that Bill is to ensure that the future of Mauritius is brighter. We need new sectors. We need new economic pillars. This can only emanate from this research. To end, Madam Speaker, let me tell you, Maurice ne peut pas bâtir l’économie de demain avec les outils d’hier. Cet institut donnera à notre pays la force de recherches nécessaire pour rivaliser, s’adapter et prendre les devants. On this note, I commend this Bill to the House. Thank you. Question put and agreed to. Bill read a second time and committed. COMMITTEE STAGE THE NATIONAL RESEARCH AND INNOVATION INSTITUTE BILL (NO. IV OF 2026) (Madam Speaker in the Chair) Clauses 1 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 23 (Coordinating Council) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment to clause 23 – “in clause 23, in subclause (2) – (i) by deleting paragraph (a) and replacing it by the following paragraph – (a) a chairperson, to be appointed by the Minister; (ii) by inserting, after paragraph (a), the following new paragraph, the existing paragraphs (b) to (e) being reletterred as paragraphs (c) to (f), respectively; (b) the Chief Executive Officer;” Amendment agreed to. Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 24 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 (Transfer of officers of MRIC to Institute) Motion made and question proposed: “that the clause stand part of the Bill”.

Madam Chairperson, I move for the following amendment to clause 43 – “clause 43, by deleting subclause (6) and replacing it by the following subclause – (6) Notwithstanding this section, the Executive Director of the MRIC shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Institute for a period of 12 months as from the date of the commencement of section 41.” Amendment agreed to. Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The title and enacting clause were agreed to. The Bill, as amended, was agreed to. On the Assembly resuming with Madam Speaker in the Chair, Madam Speaker reported accordingly. Third Reading On motion made and seconded, the National Research and Innovation Institute Bill (No. IV of 2026) was read a third time and passed.

Hon. Ag. Prime Minister!